On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:31:26PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > Probably should. I've already been looking at killing the inline > extents array to simplify the management of the extent list (much > simpler to index by rbtree when we don't have direct/indirect > structures), so killing the inline data would get rid of the other > part of the union the inline data sits in.
That's exactly where I came form with my extent list work. Although the rbtree performance was horrible due to the memory overhead and I've switched to a modified b+tree at the moment.. > OTOH, if we're going to have to dynamically allocate the memory for > the extent/inline data for the data fork, it may just be easier to > make the entire data fork a dynamic allocation (like the attr fork). I though about this a bit, but it turned out that we basically always need the data anyway, so I don't think it's going to buy us much unless we shrink the inode enough so that they better fit into a page.
