From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:52:03 +0000 From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Subject: Re: 2.5 page cache improvement idea Message-ID: <20010227115203.M8409@redhat.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from bcrl@redhat.com on Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 06:46:24PM -0500 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Ben LaHaise Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Hi, On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 06:46:24PM -0500, Ben LaHaise wrote: > > inode > -> hash table > -> struct page, index, mapping > -> head of b*tree for overflow Isn't this going to bloat the size of the inode itself horribly, though? You don't know in advance how much data you'll be caching against any given inode, so I can only see this working if you use dynamic hashing (in which case the btree overflow goes away). Cheers, Stephen -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/