Re: optimize DNAME_INLINE_LEN

[Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 05:03:50PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2001  00:29 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 04:07:06PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > Alternately (also ugly) you could just define struct dentry the as now,
> > > but have a fixed size declaration for d_iname, like:
> > > 
> > > #define DNAME_INLINE_MIN 16
> > > 
> > > 	unsigned char d_iname[DNAME_INLINE_MIN];
> >                    Using [0] here would also work 
> 
> Well, not really.  If we wanted to have a minimum size for the d_iname
> field, then if we declare it as zero and it just squeaks into a chacheline,
> then we may be stuck with 0 bytes of inline names, and _all_ names will
> be kmalloced.

That can be avoided by using a suitable formula for DNAME_INLINE_MIN

> 
> > #define d_... has a similar problem => the potential to break previously
> > compiling source code.
> 
> Again, not really.  The #define d_... scheme would leave all of the fields
> in their original locations, just giving them new names within the named
> struct, and the defines would be the backwards compatible (and probably
> still preferrable) way to access these fields.  I don't _think_ it would
> cause any compiler struct alignment issues to just put the same fields
> in another struct, but I could be wrong.

It won't help if any code is doing

void function()
{ 
	int d_name;
	...
}

Preprocessor doesn't care about scopes so it would turn that into
an syntax error.

Anyways it is moot as Manfred's latest solution looks like the way to go.

-Andi