Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Clean up fs.h union for ext2

From: Anton Altaparmakov (
Date: Sun Jan 06 2002 - 19:30:58 EST

At 22:42 06/01/02, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>I wrote:
> > To be honest I fail to see how one additional slab allocation will make
> > any difference. /
> /
>You could say the same about any aspect of Linux: and, relaxing your /
>standards in such a way, you would inevitably end up with a dog. A /
>good fast system emerges from its many small perfections. Half of /
>the number of cache entries for inodes qualifies as one of those. /

Big words but mere rhetoric IMHO... You would first have to prove that
combining the two structures (vfs and fs inodes) is an actual "perfection"
compared to the case where they are individual, which is what I am not
convinced about.

Due to the nature of the content in the vfs vs. fs inode I would expect
that one is used independent of the other in many, if not in the majority
of cases. If this is correct, then it might well be an actual benefit to
have the two separate and to benefit from the hwcache line alignment in the
fs specific part. Also considering that allocation happens once in
read_inode but the structure is then accessed many times.

Please note, I am not saying you are wrong, most likely you are quite right
in fact, I am just raising a caution flag that perhaps benchmarks of both
implementations for the same fs might be a Good Idea(TM)...

Best regards,


   "I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at> (replace at with @)
Linux NTFS Maintainer / WWW:
ICQ: 8561279 / WWW:

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to More majordomo info at Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 21:00:32 EST