|To:||Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Subject:||Re: REVIEW: Fix for incore extent corruption.|
|From:||Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Fri, 19 Sep 2008 08:15:34 -0700|
|References:||<48D19A83.email@example.com> <48D1CD46.firstname.lastname@example.org> <48D1DCD5.email@example.com> <48D218AE.firstname.lastname@example.org> <48D2C97A.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <48D2F795.email@example.com> <48D31B9A.firstname.lastname@example.org> <48D3456A.email@example.com>|
|User-agent:||Thunderbird 188.8.131.52 (Macintosh/20070728)|
Eric Sandeen wrote:
Lachlan McIlroy wrote:Once I started looking at the pattern of extent buffer reductions before and after calling compact_page/full
I noticed even when we did a partial move the number of total buffers didn't go down.
I suppose you could end up with the stars and moon lining up just right and you would
do enough partial moves to free up a page.
Since this is all incore buffers space we are talking about all these space optimizations are
moot once the inode goes inactive and is flushed from cache.
I can't really think of a situation where not doing partial extent moves is really going to
create an issue but I might be missing something.
(FWIW, compact_full *does* get called reasonably frequently, but the memmove case is what's hard to hit...)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: REVIEW: Fix for incore extent corruption., Russell Cattelan|
|Next by Date:||Re: Hello., Alexina Megameno|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: REVIEW: Fix for incore extent corruption., Eric Sandeen|
|Next by Thread:||Re: REVIEW: Fix for incore extent corruption., Lachlan McIlroy|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|