From: Andreas Dilger Subject: Re: fsck performance. Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:41:31 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20110222102056.GH21917@bitwizard.nl> <20110222133652.GI21917@bitwizard.nl> <20110222135431.GK21917@bitwizard.nl> <386B23FA-CE6E-4D9C-9799-C121B2E8C3BB@dilger.ca> <20110222221304.GH2924@thunk.org> <20110223044427.GM21917@bitwizard.nl> <20110223205309.GA16661@bitwizard.nl> <20110223231739.GS2924@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: Rogier Wolff , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Ted Ts'o Return-path: Received: from idcmail-mo1so.shaw.ca ([24.71.223.10]:57989 "EHLO idcmail-mo1so.shaw.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752417Ab1BXAlc convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:41:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20110223231739.GS2924@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2011-02-23, at 4:17 PM, Ted Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 03:24:18PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: >> >> If you have the opportunity, I wonder whether the entire need for >> tdb can be avoided in your case by using swap and the icount >> optimization patches previously posted? > > Unfortunately, there are people who are still using 32-bit CPU's, so > no, swap is not a solution here. I agree it isn't a solution in all cases, but avoiding GB-sized realloc() in the code was certainly enough to fix problems for the original people who hit them. It likely also avoids a lot of memcpy() (depending on how realloc is implemented). Cheers, Andreas