[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <20080828222348.GS3392@webber.adilger.int>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:23:48 -0600
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Do we need dump for ext4?
On Aug 28, 2008 16:35 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Yeah, but that requires dealing with Ulrich and for my own mental
> health I try to avoid that as much as possible. :-)
>
> This idea is something that has been in my "if only I had time or some
> minions to dispatch" category for quite some time. We can actually do
> this in the kernel.
>
> For small directories which could potentially get converted into htree
> format, we already sucking the entire directory and putting it into an
> rbtree. We could just do this for all directories less than or equal
> to 32k, but have them returned sorted by inode instead of by hash
> value. At least on my laptop, this accounts for 99.93% of the
> directories on my root filesystem.
What happens if the directory is grown at that point? I thought the
reason for keeping it sorted in hash order was to deal with the
telldir headache? I guess if the whole thing is in memory then it
can be attached to the fd and discarded once read or seeked-on
(and POSIX doesn't require reporting new entries after the start
of the read).
Doing this at the VFS level would also benefit _most_ filesystems,
though maybe not ones like XFS or btrfs that have their own preferred
order.
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