Re: [PATCH] [RFC v2] xfs: byte range buffer dirty region tracking

[Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>]

On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 09:19:12AM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> On 05/28/15 21:16, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >Discussion:
> >
> >I think that we will eventually need to track multiple regions - 3
> >is probably sufficient - because the nature of directory operations
> >are that just about every operation modifies a header in the buffer,
> >a tail section in the buffer and then some number of bytes/regions
> >in the middle of the buffer.
> 
> Nod to the idea.
> 
> What made you change from your original idea of using 4 regions to 3
> regions?

3 or 4 regions make little difference. header, body and tail is most
common for random directory modifications, so whether we have 1 or 2
body regions won't make much difference once more than a couple of
modifications are made to the same directory block. Indeed, I'm not
sure that we even need multiple regions - the log bandwidth and log
item memcpy overhead hasn't changed very much even on large
directory buffers with a single region...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs