On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 12:39:26PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> One of the reasons I do inode numbers in the "index" file (apart from
> checking that the inode hasn't changed) is in fact that "stat()" is damn
> slow if it causes seeks. Since your stat loop is entirely
>
> You can optimize your stat() patterns on traditional unix-like filesystems
> by just sorting the stats by inode number (since the inode number is
> historically a special index into the inode table - even when filesystems
> distribute the inodes over several tables, sorting will generally do the
> right thing from a seek perspective). It's a disgusting hack, but it
> literally gets you orders-of-magnitude performance improvments in many
> real-life cases.
It does, so why isn't there a way to do this without the disgusting
hack? (Your words, not mine :) )
E.g, wouldn't a aio_stat() allow simular or better speedups in a way
that doesn't depend on ext2/3 internals?
I bet it would make a significant difference from things like "ls -l" in
large uncached directories and imap-servers with maildir?
--
Ragnar Kjørstad
Software Engineer
Scali - http://www.scali.com
Scaling the Linux Datacenter
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
