Bharata B Rao:
> - The cache can grow arbitrarily large in size for big directories thereby
> consuming lots of memory. Pruning individual cache entries is out of question
> as entire cache is needed for subsequent readdirs for duplicate elimination.
Additionally, the memory usage may be a proble
On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 11:01 +0100, Jan Blunck wrote:
> > Rather than give each _dirent_ an offset, could we give each sub-mount
> > an offset? Let's say we have three members comprising a union mount
> > directory. The first has 100 dirents, the second 200, and the third
> > 10,000. When the fir
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 11:01:18AM +0100, Jan Blunck wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> > I think the key here is what kind of consistency we're trying to
> > provide. If a directory is being changed underneath a reader, what
> > kinds of guarantees do they get about the contents of
On Wed, Dec 05, Dave Hansen wrote:
> I think the key here is what kind of consistency we're trying to
> provide. If a directory is being changed underneath a reader, what
> kinds of guarantees do they get about the contents of their directory
> read? When do those guarantees start? Are there an
On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 20:07 +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> In this approach, the cached dirents are given offsets in the form of
> linearly increasing indices/cookies (like 0, 1, 2,...). This helps us to
> uniformly define offsets across all the directories of the union
> irrespective of the type of
Hi,
In Union Mount, the merged view of directories of the union is obtained
by enhancing readdir(2)/getdents(2) to read and merge the entries of
all the directories by eliminating the duplicates. While we have tried
a few approaches for this, none of them could perfectly solve all the problems.
O
6 matches
Mail list logo
