Charles Manning wrote: > On Friday 01 July 2005 10:41, Charles Manning wrote:
>
>>On Thursday 30 June 2005 17:43, Beat Morf wrote:
>>
>>>Hi
>>>
>>>I am using YAFFS direct implementation and actually testing some
>>>basically requirements.
>>>
>>>When I write hundreds of files into the root of my YAFFS-FS (let's say
>>>600) and dump them afterwards ('yaffs_opendir()', 'yaffs_readdir()'), I
>>>saw, that the 'yaffs_readdir(...)' functions needs much more time for
>>>the last files than for the first one.
>>>
>>>Each call to the 'yaffs_readdir(...)' function will start at the first
>>>object within the 'yaffs_DIR'. For knowing which object was allready
>>>returned, a separate list of allready showed objects is applied (the
>>>objects are identifiable with the ObjectID); Means long times for a lot
>>>of files!
>>>
>>>What is exactly the reason for such a method if I don't need to give
>>>them out in an special ordered way?
>>>
>>>Actually I am using following 'yaffs_xxxxdir(...)' functions with a good
>>>performance ('dsc->list' is used for pointing to the next
>>>yaffsfs_ObjectListEntry entry):
>>
>>Thanx Beat
>>
>>I have had this comment once before from someone using huge directories.
>>I believe they got around the problem by caching names in their
>>application.
>>
>>There are some interesting issues associated with directory reading. For
>>example, what happens if another thread is writing new files to the
>>directory or deleting files from the directory?
>>
>>The easiest way to do a directory traversal is to keep a pointer to the
>>next sibling in the list as we search, but that can go wrong if that object
>>gets deleted before you read it:
>>
>>eg.
>>
>>1. Directory has files xx,yy zz.
>>2. Read dir, get xx. Pointer points to yy
>>3. Delete yy
>>4. Now pointer points to a non-existant object!
>>
>>Another way that does not work is to try remember the number where you are:
>>eg.
>>1. Directory has files xx,yy zz.
>>2. Read dir, get xx. Remember we're pointing to item 1 (starting at zero)
>>3. Delete xx
>>4. Now item 1 is zz and we skipped past yy.
>>
>>
>>The code, as is, covers for cuveballs like this but it isn't very
>>efficient. This is something that I should look at improving.
>>
>>
>>I have not looked at your code suggestion in detail yet, but I shall.
>>
>>-- Charles
>
>
> Having looked at Beat's code I think it would fail under one of the delete
> case I mention.
>
> I spent some time this weekend trying to implement some code using a balanced
> AVL tree instead of a linked list. This would possibly improve the speed but
> things would still degrade with large directories.
>
> I'm now thinking of a scheme that is like Beat'ssuggestion, but is delete
> safe.
>
> Essentially, this will use a pointer into the directory (same as Beat's), but
> it would also add a check to any file deletion from a directory to check
> whether the file is currently being pointed to, and if so move it on to the
> next item in the directory.
>
> Ideas anybody?
>
> -- Charles
>
>
>
You are right. My code I posted would fail under one of the delete case
you mentioned.
Your idea to add a check to any file/directory deletion if a pointer is
pointing to, is the solution of the problem.
If I would add such a functionality within the code I posted a week ago,
the access to the open "yaffsfs_DirectorySearchContext's (dsc)" must be
available during the file/directory deletion.
Is there no possiblity to add a list of
"yaffsfs_DirectorySearchContext"-objects to a directory object?
(text/plain)