On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 10:03 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Indeed. You'd probably need to split the linkage of the pages into > a list of those that have free blocks and those that don't as a minimum. > > Can you share your current version? Sure, I can share the current version, though fair warning---it’s still quite messy. FWIW, I wonder if the bitmap approach might be more suitable as a separate RFC. AFAICT, the primary issue with the currently submitted patches is their runtime overhead. I’ve proposed a way to address this in my recent response to [RFC v2 0/2]. Unfortunately, as I noted, improving the memory overhead without worsening the runtime performance is challenging---for example, removing the `next_block` pointers would require iterating over all pages to find a free `block`, which significantly impacts the runtime. That said, how would you prefer I share my bitmap approach? Should I submit it as a separate patch series or provide the patch directly in this thread? Thanks, Brian Johannesmeyer
