On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:57:38 -0500
Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:
> The questions are:
>
> 1) how much would this slow down lookups for these filesystems?
> 2) is it enough to justify adding more infrastructure to avoid it?
>
> What might be best is to start with this approach and then only move to using
> IDR or some other scheme if these extra inodes in the hashtable prove to be
> problematic.
>
> I've done some cursory testing with this patch and the overhead of hashing
> and unhashing the inodes with pipefs is pretty low -- just a few seconds of
> system time added on to the creation and destruction of 10 million pipes (very
> similar to the overhead that the IDR approach would add).
What is the additional overhead, expressed in relative terms? ie: as a percentage?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
