![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Quoting Alexander Viro (viro@math.psu.edu): > > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Hans Reiser wrote: > > > This fails to recover an object (e.g. dcache entry) which is used once, > > and then spends a year in cache on the same page as an object which is > > hot all the time. This means that the hot set of objects becomes > > diffused over an order of magnitude more pages than if garbage > > collection squeezes them all together. That makes for very poor caching. > > Any GC that is going to move active dentries around is out of question. > It would need a locking of such strength that you would be the first > to cry bloody murder - about 5 seconds after you look at the scalability > benchmarks. We're not talking about actively referenced entries, we're talking about entries on the d_lru list with zero references. Relocating those objects should not require any more locking than currently required to remove and re-insert the dcache entry. Right? -josh -- PRCS version control system http://sourceforge.net/projects/prcs Xdelta storage & transport http://sourceforge.net/projects/xdelta Need a concurrent skip list? http://sourceforge.net/projects/skiplist - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:15 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||