Bharata B Rao:
> - The cache can grow arbitrarily large in size for big directories thereby
> consuming lots of memory. Pruning individual cache entries is out of question
> as entire cache is needed for subsequent readdirs for duplicate elimination.
Additionally, the memory usage may be a
On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 11:01 +0100, Jan Blunck wrote:
> > Rather than give each _dirent_ an offset, could we give each sub-mount
> > an offset? Let's say we have three members comprising a union mount
> > directory. The first has 100 dirents, the second 200, and the third
> > 10,000. When the
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 11:01:18AM +0100, Jan Blunck wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> > I think the key here is what kind of consistency we're trying to
> > provide. If a directory is being changed underneath a reader, what
> > kinds of guarantees do they get about the contents of
On Wed, Dec 05, Dave Hansen wrote:
> I think the key here is what kind of consistency we're trying to
> provide. If a directory is being changed underneath a reader, what
> kinds of guarantees do they get about the contents of their directory
> read? When do those guarantees start? Are there
On Wed, Dec 05, Dave Hansen wrote:
I think the key here is what kind of consistency we're trying to
provide. If a directory is being changed underneath a reader, what
kinds of guarantees do they get about the contents of their directory
read? When do those guarantees start? Are there any
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 11:01:18AM +0100, Jan Blunck wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, Dave Hansen wrote:
I think the key here is what kind of consistency we're trying to
provide. If a directory is being changed underneath a reader, what
kinds of guarantees do they get about the contents of their
On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 11:01 +0100, Jan Blunck wrote:
Rather than give each _dirent_ an offset, could we give each sub-mount
an offset? Let's say we have three members comprising a union mount
directory. The first has 100 dirents, the second 200, and the third
10,000. When the first
Bharata B Rao:
- The cache can grow arbitrarily large in size for big directories thereby
consuming lots of memory. Pruning individual cache entries is out of question
as entire cache is needed for subsequent readdirs for duplicate elimination.
Additionally, the memory usage may be a problem
On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 20:07 +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> In this approach, the cached dirents are given offsets in the form of
> linearly increasing indices/cookies (like 0, 1, 2,...). This helps us to
> uniformly define offsets across all the directories of the union
> irrespective of the type
Hi,
In Union Mount, the merged view of directories of the union is obtained
by enhancing readdir(2)/getdents(2) to read and merge the entries of
all the directories by eliminating the duplicates. While we have tried
a few approaches for this, none of them could perfectly solve all the problems.
Hi,
In Union Mount, the merged view of directories of the union is obtained
by enhancing readdir(2)/getdents(2) to read and merge the entries of
all the directories by eliminating the duplicates. While we have tried
a few approaches for this, none of them could perfectly solve all the problems.
On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 20:07 +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
In this approach, the cached dirents are given offsets in the form of
linearly increasing indices/cookies (like 0, 1, 2,...). This helps us to
uniformly define offsets across all the directories of the union
irrespective of the type of
12 matches
Mail list logo
