On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 09:33:04AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 02:07:23AM +0800, Josef Bacik wrote: > > As Yan pointed out, theres not much reason for all this complicated math to > > account for file extents being split up into max_extent chunks, since they > > are > > likely to all end up in the same leaf anyway. Since there isn't much > > reason to > > use max_extent, just remove the option altogether so we have one less thing > > we > > need to test. Thanks, > Since we sometimes have very big extents like several hundered mega bytes, > just > curious could removing max_extent limit cause more lock contentation for > extent locks?
The default for the max_extent option is (u64)-1. So, in general it was meant to force smaller extents as part of testing. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
