[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectUncached stat performace [ Was: Re: Kernel SCM saga.. ]
    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 -
    Scaling the Linux Datacenter
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-04-08 22:15    [W:0.022 / U:43.108 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site