From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Mason Subject: Re: [PATCH] various allocator optimizations Date: 14 Mar 2003 15:40:46 -0500 Message-ID: <1047674445.8219.1194.camel@tiny.suse.com> References: <1047400482.8215.312.camel@tiny.suse.com> <20030311194205.A4493@namesys.com> <1047499021.8219.604.camel@tiny.suse.com> <3E6F9DE3.2070902@namesys.com> <1047571151.8219.956.camel@tiny.suse.com> <3E711F34.4060309@namesys.com> <1047605662.8215.1068.camel@tiny.suse.com> <3E71AE72.3090107@namesys.com> <1047649898.8218.1095.camel@tiny.suse.com> <3E72268E.8060801@namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <3E72268E.8060801@namesys.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Hans Reiser Cc: Oleg Drokin , reiserfs-list@namesys.com On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 13:59, Hans Reiser wrote: > >Grin, who are you and what have you done with the real hans ;-) > > > You don't need it for every file, you need it for every directory. > How does a given file know which directory to update, you'd need a pointer in each file to the corresponding key of the directory where the accounting is actually done. > > It's > >two fields, one for the counter and one to point up the chain to the > >real owner. It's yet another field to maintain as objects are deleted > >and created, > > > or written to or truncated, yes, the cost of lots of updates to this are > worrying. It might be better done in the repacker than dynamically, > in fact I just convinced myself of that, how about you.....? > > >a minor format change since old filesystem stat data won't > >have the field, and requires support from fsck. > > > Nobody will mind if we change reiser4 format now.... > I'm also concerned with improving the block allocator for reiserfs v3, there's no reason to keep the existing one if minor changes can make it substantially better. -chris