lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] epoll use a single inode ...

[ Al Viro added to Cc: as the arbiter of good taste in the VFS layer. He
has veto powers even over my proposals ;^]

On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Davide Libenzi wrote:
>
> I currently have the dentry to carry the name of the file* class it is
> linked to. I'd prefer to keep it that way, unless there are huge factors
> against.

I assume that the *only* reason for having multiple dentries is really
just the output in /proc/<pid>/fd/, right? Or is there any other reason to
have separate dentries for these pseudo-files?

It's a bit sad to waste that much memory (and time) on something like
that. I bet that the dentry setup is a noticeable part of the whole
sigfd()/timerfd() setup. It's likely also a big part of any memory
footprint if you have lots of them.

So how about just doing:
- do a single dentry
- make a "struct file_operations" member function that prints out the
name of the thing in /proc/<pid>/fd/, and which *defaults* to just
doing the d_path() on the dentry, but special filesystems like this
could do something else (like print out a fake inode number from the
"file->f_private_data" information)

There seems to really be no downsides to that approach. No existing
filesystem will even notice (they'll all have NULL in the new f_op
member), and it would allow pipes etc to be sped up and use less memory.

Linus
-
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: 2007-03-07 01:55    [W:0.102 / U:0.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site