lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: negative dentries wasting ram
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 01:00:14PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > The only think we save is a dentry kfree/kmalloc in this case, nbot a FS
> > downcall. And I think Andrea is right that it can waste memory for the
> > likely much more common case where the file just stays removed.
> ???
> It's lookup + unlink + lookup + create vs. lookup + unlink + create.

I would rather use kernel memory for far more useful things, such as
more room for actual dentries/inodes, or negative dentries found from
failed lookup() calls (i.e. proven useful).

The overhead of unlink()/create() probably swamps the rather minimal
gain from a saved lookup() in this not very common situation.

Just the opinion of somebody that doesn't matter... :-)
mark

--
mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...

http://mark.mielke.cc/

-
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 13:22    [W:0.068 / U:0.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site