Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:43:07 -0500 (EST) | From | Benjamin LaHaise <> | Subject | Re: [ Mind testing experimental one-liner? ] |
| |
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Simon Kirby wrote:
> Okay...I'm still seeing the problem on the mail server that I saw before, > but the example I had with the floppy has been fixed, so it seems like > there might be something more that we're missing.
Most mail programs do an fsync() on mailboxes at various points in their execution. Looking at fs/ext2/fsync.c, it uses get_hash_table extensively, which is probably leading to the needless waiting. Also, it doesn't look like any readahead is done on the indirect blocks (everything is syncronous, leading to lots of scattered disk io -- dragging the whole system's performance down)... If you try replacing ext2_sync_file in fs/ext2/file.c with file_fsync, is performance reasonable (I expect it should be)?
Does anyone else think that the #ifndef __LITTLE_ENDIAN in the ext2 code is *really* ugly? Why not just let the le32_to_cpu be optimized by gcc?
-ben
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |