From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Zarochentsev Subject: Re: A question about slum and relocate Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:19:03 +0300 Message-ID: <20031125101902.GB2144@backtop.namesys.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Zhihui Zhang Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 06:50:07PM -0500, Zhihui Zhang wrote: > Hi, > > After reading some code, it seems to me that a slum does not have to be > relocated. If a slum is small , it will use the overwrite strategy. Is > this understanding correct? Not exactly. If slum is big we set pos->leaf_relocate and always relocate leaf nodes. Except this, flush alg. makes relocate/overwrite decision individually for each node. Leaves can be relocated even if slum size < FLUSH_RELOCATE_THRESHOLD. > Also, at the leaf level, if the number of > dirty nodes exceeds FLUSH_RELOCATE_THRESHOLD (64), they are always > relocated. Is there any similar threshold for an internal level? no. > Does Reiser4 relocate internal nodes separately (i.e. not as part of the slum > involving leaf nodes. yes. > Note a slum can grow backwards if a dirty node is the leftmost child of a > parent at an internal level)? Thanks for your enlightenment. > > -Zhihui > > -- -- Alex.