From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p9ADMZaM179367 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:22:35 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 7E9191F1EC13 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 06:22:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.109.252]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id OuaT4uJ9E5xrBxOp for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 06:22:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:22:33 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] repair: don't cache large blkmap allocations Message-ID: <20111010132233.GB15671@infradead.org> References: <1318201910-11144-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1318201910-11144-5-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20111009234809.GB13527@infradead.org> <20111010001400.GO3159@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111010001400.GO3159@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:14:00AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > okay. > > But not unreasonable for a filesystem full of torrents ;) I'm just wondering if it's still the right memory / overhead tradeoff at that point. > > > (If only we had a non-sucky threaded memory allocator in userspace..) > > Perhaps we should look at the talloc code from ccan? I'm not sure the interface is compatible enough with the kernel style allocator we use in libxfs. Except for that it's probably worth taking a look. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs