On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:00:31 +0200, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue 23-09-14 11:02:32, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> > It is reasonable to prepent newly created index to older one.
> ...
> > - newblock = ext4_ext_new_meta_block(handle, inode, NULL,
> > - newext, &err, flags);
> > + /* Try to prepend new index to old one */
> > + if (ext_depth(inode))
> > + goal = ext4_idx_pblock(EXT_FIRST_INDEX(ext_inode_hdr(inode)));
> > + if (goal > le32_to_cpu(es->s_first_data_block)) {
> > + flags |= EXT4_MB_HINT_TRY_GOAL;
> > + goal--;
> > + } else
> > + goal = ext4_inode_to_goal_block(inode);
> > + newblock = ext4_new_meta_blocks(handle, inode, goal, flags,
> > + NULL, &err);
> > if (newblock == 0)
> > return err;
> Hum, did you actually observe any improvement in file layout with this
> patch?
Hmmm.... well this patch itself unlikely result in improvements because
the block we asks is likely used already. This is because non optimal block
allocation for mdata. I hope to fix it once we start working on ideas
which was described in "fast fsck" tread
(http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.ext4/41472)
>
> Honza
> --
> Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> SUSE Labs, CR
--
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
