1. 03 1月, 2009 7 次提交
  2. 02 1月, 2009 2 次提交
  3. 01 1月, 2009 2 次提交
    • A
      take init_fs to saner place · 18d8fda7
      Al Viro 提交于
      Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
      18d8fda7
    • N
      shrink struct dentry · c2452f32
      Nick Piggin 提交于
      struct dentry is one of the most critical structures in the kernel. So it's
      sad to see it going neglected.
      
      With CONFIG_PROFILING turned on (which is probably the common case at least
      for distros and kernel developers), sizeof(struct dcache) == 208 here
      (64-bit). This gives 19 objects per slab.
      
      I packed d_mounted into a hole, and took another 4 bytes off the inline
      name length to take the padding out from the end of the structure. This
      shinks it to 200 bytes. I could have gone the other way and increased the
      length to 40, but I'm aiming for a magic number, read on...
      
      I then got rid of the d_cookie pointer. This shrinks it to 192 bytes. Rant:
      why was this ever a good idea? The cookie system should increase its hash
      size or use a tree or something if lookups are a problem. Also the "fast
      dcookie lookups" in oprofile should be moved into the dcookie code -- how
      can oprofile possibly care about the dcookie_mutex? It gets dropped after
      get_dcookie() returns so it can't be providing any sort of protection.
      
      At 192 bytes, 21 objects fit into a 4K page, saving about 3MB on my system
      with ~140 000 entries allocated. 192 is also a multiple of 64, so we get
      nice cacheline alignment on 64 and 32 byte line systems -- any given dentry
      will now require 3 cachelines to touch all fields wheras previously it
      would require 4.
      
      I know the inline name size was chosen quite carefully, however with the
      reduction in cacheline footprint, it should actually be just about as fast
      to do a name lookup for a 36 character name as it was before the patch (and
      faster for other sizes). The memory footprint savings for names which are
      <= 32 or > 36 bytes long should more than make up for the memory cost for
      33-36 byte names.
      
      Performance is a feature...
      Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
      c2452f32
  4. 31 12月, 2008 29 次提交