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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
