|
Re: Why we need delayed allocation!: msg#00049file-systems.ext2.devel
On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 23:41, Alex Tomas wrote: > probably, this would look crazy, but what about following: > > 1) at writeback time we can have in cache dirty pages to be flushed > and clean pages we dont flush usually > 2) if clean page(s) help to enlarge an extent(s) then we could unmap > those clean pages and allocate new larger extent using them The complication with this is O_DIRECT; what if an application does an O_DIRECT read of the page in parallel to this "remapping"... it could get the old data from the disk of the new mapping if this happens to be before the new block is written. Also correct journalling is a tiny bit complex; eg the metadata blocks should only be updated once the data has hit the disk in the new spot etc etc (but I'm sure that can be dealt with).
|
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Re: Why we need delayed allocation!: 00049, Zachary Peterson |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Why we need delayed allocation!: 00049, Mike Fedyk |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Why we need delayed allocation!i: 00049, Alex Tomas |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Why we need delayed allocation!: 00049, Zachary Peterson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |