[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200903142108.53155.phillips@phunq.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:08:52 -0700
From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@...nq.net>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
tux3@...3.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Tux3] Tux3 report: Tux3 Git tree available
On Saturday 14 March 2009, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Sunday 15 March 2009 14:24:29 Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > I expect implementing VM extents to be a brutally complex project, as
> > filesystem extents always turn out to be, even though one tends to
> > enter such projects thinking, how hard could this be? Answer: harder
> > than you think. But VM extents would be good for a modest speedup, so
> > somebody is sure to get brave enough to try it sometime.
>
> I don't think there is enough evidence to be able to make such an
> assertion.
>
> When you actually implement extent splitting and merging in a deadlock
> free manner and synchronize everything properly I wouldn't be surprised
> if it is slower most of the time. If it was significantly faster, then
> memory fragmentation means that it is going to get significantly slower
> over the uptime of the kernel, so you would have to virtually map the
> kernel and implement memory defragmentation, at which point you get even
> slower and more complex.
You can make exactly the same argument about filesystem extents, and
we know that extents are faster there. So what is the fundamental
difference?
Regards,
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists