Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 24 May 2002 18:21:19 +0200 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: negative dentries wasting ram |
| |
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 12:12:16PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote: > > > On Fri, 24 May 2002, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > The fs access will be exactly the same, only the dentry won't be > > allocated because it's just in the hash, but it has no inode and it > > doesn't correspond to any on-disk dentry, we simply cannot defer the > > RTFS. > > Lookup on a name that has hashed negative dentry does not touch fs code. > At all.
of course I was thinking mostly at the unlink procedure, I see the point now in having the information that no dentry exists on disk with such name. that's an heuristic to optimize some common case but the unlink and a create failure should definitely get rid of the negative dentry, it's not a common case to delete a file and then to try to access it, while there are common cases that wants to avoid stale dentries around for deleted files.
Andrea - 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/
| |