Re: negative dentries wasting ram

Mark Mielke
2002-05-24T18:42:26Z

On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 01:00:14PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > The only think we save is a dentry kfree/kmalloc in this case, nbot a FS
> > downcall. And I think Andrea is right that it can waste memory for the
> > likely much more common case where the file just stays removed.
> ???
> It's lookup + unlink + lookup + create vs. lookup + unlink + create.

I would rather use kernel memory for far more useful things, such as
more room for actual dentries/inodes, or negative dentries found from
failed lookup() calls (i.e. proven useful).

The overhead of unlink()/create() probably swamps the rather minimal
gain from a saved lookup() in this not very common situation.

Just the opinion of somebody that doesn't matter... :-)
mark

--
mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...