Re: Is nobh code still useful?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 09:21:37PM -0700, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> Originally it was supported on ext2. I added support nobh support for  
> ext3. At that time, the main
> issue/complaint was that, these bufferheads consume memory from  
> ZONE_NORMAL causing
> memory pressure on 32-bit (i386) configurations.

Yeah, I think that's a tradeof past it's days.  I'm all for nuking it,
and while we're at it we should also find a better way to integrate the
mpage bits.  Not using them is pretty dumb, so the default aops should
really be mpage if possible, else fall back without the need for
different sets of aops.

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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux