Hi, sorry for late reply. This patch tries to unify node-/leaf-/... sizes nad put it just into fs_info, but this assumes all trees share the same sizes. Unfortunatelly this is not true (once we allow big blocks; soon?). The root tree has a hardcoded size of 4k, see the __setup_root called with 4k in open_ctree: 1760 __setup_root(4096, 4096, 4096, 4096, tree_root, 1761 fs_info, BTRFS_ROOT_TREE_OBJECTID); the other trees have size defined during mkfs. And only these trees share the size. You'd have to add exception to use 4k or ->leafsize depending on the tree being used. It's less error prone to always just the structure item as it will hold always the correct value, although there is some memory wasted. >From the peformace POV, the ->leafsize etc items can cause cacheline bouncing when any of the code wants to access the item (and it's not that rare) for a different tree / cpu. But anyway with current performance status, this effect will be hardly measurable. On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 11:54:31PM +0200, Peeters Simon wrote: > [1] https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Cleanup_ideas I'd like to see how this idea was expected to be implemented, but there's no wiki to check. david -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
