From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 24 May 2002 14:42:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 24 May 2002 14:42:25 -0400 Received: from mark.mielke.cc ([216.209.85.42]:12805 "EHLO mark.mielke.cc") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 24 May 2002 14:42:23 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 14:36:25 -0400 From: Mark Mielke To: Alexander Viro Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrea Arcangeli , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: negative dentries wasting ram Message-ID: <20020524143625.A25016@mark.mielke.cc> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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... http://mark.mielke.cc/