Re: negative dentries wasting ram

[Mark Mielke]

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

-- 
[e-mail]/[e-mail]/[e-mail] __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | 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/