![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Linus Torvalds wrote: > I do not believe that "get_block()" is as big of a problem as people make > it out to be. I didn't mention get_block - disk accesses obviously far outweigh filesystem cpu/cache usage in overall impact. The question is, what happens to disk access patterns when we do the deferred allocation. > One form of deferred writes I _do_ like is the mount-time-option form. > Because that one doesn't add complexity. Kind of like the "noatime" mount > option - it can be worth it under some circumstances, and sometimes it's > acceptable to not get 100% unix semantics - at which point deferred writes > have none of the disadvantages of trying to be clever. And the added attraction of requiring almost no effort. -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||