Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 18:11:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 18:10:53 -0400 Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu ([146.186.130.2]:18617 "EHLO math.psu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 18:10:50 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 18:10:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Alexander Viro To: Ingo Oeser cc: Christoph Hellwig , Christoph Rohland , "David L. Parsley" , lm@bitmover.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: hundreds of mount --bind mountpoints? In-Reply-To: <20010424000008.J719@nightmaster.csn.tu-chemnitz.de> Message-ID: 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 Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote: > We have this kind of stuff all over the place. If we allocate > some small amount of memory and and need some small amount > associated with this memory, there is no problem with a little > waste. Little? How about quarter of kilobyte per inode? sizeof(struct inode) is nearly half-kilobyte. And icache can easily get to ~100000 elements. > Waste is better than fragmentation. This is the lesson people > learned from segments in the ia32. > > Objects are easier to manage, if they are the same size. So don't keep them in the same cache. Notice that quite a few systems keep vnode separately from fs-specific data. For a very good reason. Al - 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/