[lkml]   [2001]   [Apr]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: hundreds of mount --bind mountpoints?
    Ingo Oeser writes:
    > On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 11:36:24AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
    > > > Great idea. We allocate this space anyway. And we don't have to
    > > > care about the internals of this union, because never have to use
    > > > it outside the kernel ;-)
    > > >
    > > > I like it. ext2fs does the same, so there should be no VFS
    > > > hassles involved. Al?
    > >
    > > We should get ext2 and friends to move the sucker _out_ of struct inode.
    > > As it is, sizeof(struct inode) is way too large. This is 2.5 stuff, but
    > > it really has to be done. More filesystems adding stuff into the union
    > > is a Bad Thing(tm). If you want to allocates space - allocate if yourself;
    > > ->clear_inode() is the right place for freeing it.
    > You need an inode anyway. So why not using the space in it? tmpfs
    > would only use sizeof(*inode.u)-sizeof(struct shmem_inode_info) for
    > this kind of symlinks.
    > Last time we suggested this, people ended up with some OS trying
    > it and getting worse performance.
    > Why? You need to allocate the VFS-inode (vnode in other OSs) and
    > the on-disk-inode anyway at the same time. You get better
    > performance and less fragmentation, if you allocate them both
    > together[1].

    We want to take out that union because it sucks for virtual
    filesystems. Besides, it's ugly.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:0.021 / U:1.796 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site