On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 10:51:27AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Ugh. This patch makes me angry. It looks way too ad-hoc.
>
> I can well imagine that our current one-entry cache is crap and could
> be improved, but this looks too random. Different code for the
> CONFIG_MMU case? Same name, but for non-MMU it's a single entry, for
> MMU it's an array? And the whole "largest" just looks odd. Plus why do
> you set LAST_USED if you also set LARGEST?
>
> Did you try just a two- or four-entry pseudo-LRU instead, with a
> per-thread index for "last hit"? Or even possibly a small fixed-size
> hash table (say "idx = (add >> 10) & 3" or something)?
Btw, Dave Chiner has recently implemented a simple look aside cache for
the buffer cache, which also uses a rbtree. Might beworth into making
that into a generic library and use it here:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.xfs.general/56220
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
