Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 23:37:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 23:37:25 -0400 Received: from garrincha.netbank.com.br ([200.203.199.88]:16401 "HELO netbank.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 23:37:09 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 00:35:19 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel To: Alexander Viro Cc: Daniel Phillips , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, adilger@turbolinux.com, ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: Ext2 Directory Index - Delete Performance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote: > Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. We shouldn't keep inode table in > buffer-cache at all. Then tell me, how exactly DO you plan to do write clustering of inodes when you want to flush them to disk ? If you don't keep them in the buffer cache for a while (or in the page cache, for that matter), there's no way you can get efficient IO clustering done... Also, the buffer cache referenced bit will be extremely useful for things like indirect blocks, etc... regards, Rik -- Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/