Subject: tmpfs: Internal representation of data
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Julio M. Merino Vidal <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/19/2005 20:18:53
[ I'm CCing my mentors for the tmpfs project ]
The tmpfs code is up to the point where I have to start
implementing the vnode operations. To do this, I have
to decide how to organize the file data in memory as
well as all other information needed to manage it.
After thinking about this for a while, it seems that the best
way to do this is to follow a layout similar to the one used
for existing on-disk file systems. That is, I need:
- A set of nodes that describe files. These could be like
- A set of blocks that store file contents. These could store
directories as well (i.e., the "file" representing the directory
Suppressing the former (merging it with directory contents,
thus becoming something like the FAT) means that
implementing hard links becomes very complex, so the
separation is worth it.
Now, to store these two data structures in memory. Before
I started coding, I thought I could use malloc/free to allocate
and deallocate blocks of memory on the fly. I.e., when a new
block is needed, I do a malloc and use it. When it is useless,
I do a free and its associated memory is released.
This is inappropriate because malloc/free operate on wired
memory. Furthermore, I guess malloc is an expensive
operation and should not be used intensively to avoid its
overhead (think about how tmpfs could abuse it).
Therefore, I started reading a bit about UVM, and although I
don't understand it very well yet, it seems to me that it is
possible to map a region of virtual (unwired) memory and use
it at will (just as if you had done a malloc). So, for now, I'm
using malloc/free to allocate some (few) memory blocks, and
I hope that changing this to use unwired memory will be as
easy as doing some call to UVM to request a memory region
and use pointers inside it for our own use.
With this in mind, it seems that a good way to map the data
structures said before into these memory blocks could be:
- Allocate a memory block of no. nodes * sizeof node. This
could be used to hold all nodes. It could be handled with
- Allocate a memory block of no. blocks * sizeof blocks. As
before, with an associated bitmap describing its contents.
(Note that the number of blocks and nodes is configured by
the user at mount time.)
The advantages of this structure are:
- Access to blocks and nodes is constant time, as they are
located in known memory positions (it's a vector).
- Allocation of blocks and nodes is of linear time due to the
location of empty holes in the bitmap. Can be solved
with a pool of available entries (at a later time).
- Deallocation of blocks and nodes is constant time.
- It's easy to grow (and to some extent, shrink) the file
system at will.
- The implementation is straightforward.
- It is very similar to traditional Unix file systems, so it will be
easy to understand.
The code in the CVS did exactly this some revisions before
HEAD. In a later change, I undid the separation explained
here and used blocks for everything. But I'm starting to
regret that decision because it will be very complex to store
nodes if I don't want to waste much memory.
What do you think? Can you come up with better ideas or
suggestions? Anything inherently wrong in this rationale?
Julio M. Merino Vidal <email@example.com>
The NetBSD Project - http://www.NetBSD.org/