From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <[email protected]>
> I thought that the advantage of this optimization is that we don't
> need to visit all buffers? If we need to run a full-scan for any
> reason, there's no point in looking-up already-visited buffers
> again. That's just wastefull cycles. Am I missing somethig?
>
> I don't understand. If we chose to the optimized dropping, the reason
> is the number of buffer lookup is fewer than a certain threashold. Why
> do you think that the fork kind a buffer belongs to is relevant to the
> criteria?
I rethought about this, and you certainly have a point, but... OK, I think I
understood. I should have thought in a complicated way. In other words,
you're suggesting "Let's simply treat all forks as one relation to determine
whether to optimize," right? That is, the code simple becomes:
Sums up the number of buffers to invalidate in all forks;
if (the cached sizes of all forks are valid && # of buffers to invalidate <
THRESHOLD)
{
do the optimized way;
return;
}
do the traditional way;
This will be simple, and I'm +1.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
