On Sunday, May 27, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Liu Bo <liubo2009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >Hi, > >Thanks for working on this. > >Do you have any performance number? > >The idea is an interesting one, but I have no idea if it really >works, because blocks are >still fragments: > >| 16k | 16k | 16k | >|----|A|----|----|B|----|----|C|----| > > >Or am I missing something? > >thanks, >liubo > Hi, Liu Bo I noticed your graphic and what you said, "still fragments" thanks you. According my patch's logic, any COWs for tree block A will be limited in it's 16k caterpillar band in the example, at least theoretically, and so tree block B, like the following: |<-- A circulated in 16k -->| |<-- B circulated in 16k -->| |--a-->|--b-->|--c-->|--d-->| |--a-->|--b-->|--c-->|--d-->| | | | | |-------------<-------------| |-------------<-------------| Liu Bo, are the fragments you mentioned referenced to the ones in a caterpillar or ones out of a caterpillar? if they are in a caterpillar, nothing would be worried, because they are supposed to stay there forever, and that efficiency is just what I want. To a certain degree, using a caterpillar for a tree block is somewhat similar with the way superblock runs, a superblock circularly updated in a cluster of DISCONTINUOUS blocks within a large range, and I use a caterpillar band to force a tree block updated circularly in a continuous blocks within a compact area. Sorry, I haven't yet take performance test for my patch now, a bit more times are still needed for me to check the possible bugs in code's routes before tests, and any comments are welcome. Thanks all you. WeiFeng Liu 523f28f9b3d9c710cacc31dbba644efb1678cf62 -- 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
