[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071211231528.GS3214@webber.adilger.int>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:15:28 -0700
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
To: "Jose R. Santos" <jrs@...ibm.com>
Cc: linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Flex_BG ialloc awareness V2.
On Dec 11, 2007 10:08 -0600, Jose R. Santos wrote:
> > I'd think being able to avoid the divide for every inode allocation is more
> > important than 8 bits in the superblock.
>
> We already avoid the divide since what we store in the sbi IS the bits
> which are calculated at mount time for each fs. Base on the other
> fields in the super block struct, I decided to put explicit size of the
> flexbg in the super block. The kernel code can decide how best to use
> that number which in this case its used to calculate the number of bits
> in order to avoid doing divides.
>
> So this is really a styling issue in how to record data in the super
> block. The only technical issue with this is whether it's important to
> save those extra 8 bits in the super block struct.
Well, if it is stored in the superblock as a non-power-of-two value, then
there always exists the possibility that it is set incorrectly (maybe by
a version of mke2fs that doesn't verify this) and the code will not do the
right thing. Storing it in bits (as is done with e.g. s_log_block_size and
s_log_frag_size) ensures there is no possibility of a value that isn't a
power-of-two.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists