Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:12:33 -0400 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/11] nfsacl | From | "J. Bruce Fields" <> |
| |
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 05:51:47PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > On Tue, 2004-04-27 at 17:18, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:28:47PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > > nfsacl-lazy-alloc > > > Allow to allocate pages in the receive buffers lazily. ACLs may have > > > up to 1024 entries in nfsacl but usually are small, so allocating > > > space for them on demand makes sense. > > > > Is there any reason we couldn't set the maximum smaller than that? It > > looks like the acl entries are pretty compact (12 bytes if I'm reading > > the xdr code right?) so if we limited the length of an xdr-encoded acl > > to a page that would still allow a few hundred entries. Are there > > really people that need 1000-entry acls? > > Well, that's what the protocol allows so I don't see why we shouldn't > implement it fully. Besides, nfsacl-lazy-alloc benefits the common case > even more, because with small acls that fit into xdr_buf->head entirely, > no page needs to be allocated.
Hm, so looks like xdr_buf->head would fit about 150 entries. Couldn't that be enough?
--Bruce Fields - 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/
| |