Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 8 Apr 2005 11:05:40 -0700 | From | Chris Wedgwood <> | Subject | Re: Kernel SCM saga.. |
| |
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 10:46:40AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I can indeed stat the entire tree in that time (assuming it's in memory, > of course, but my kernel trees are _always_ in memory ;), but in order to > do so, I have to be good at finding the names to stat.
<pause ... tapity tap>
I just tested this (I wanted to be sure you didn't have some 47GHz LiHe cooled Xeon or something).
On my somewhat slowish machine[1] (by today's standards anyhow) I can stat a checked out tree (ie. the source files and not SCM files) in about 0.10s it seems and 0.26s for an entire tree with BK files in it.
> In particular, you have to be extremely careful. You need to make > sure that you don't stat anything you don't need to.
Actually, I could probably make this *much* still faster with a caveat. Given that my editor when I write a file will write a temporary file and rename it, for files in directories where nlink==2 I can check chat first and skip the stat of the individual files.
And I guess if I was bored I could have my editor or some daemon sitting in the background intelligently using dnotify to have this information on-hand more or less instantly. For this purpose though that seems like a lot of effort for no real gain right now.
> Anybody who can't list the files they work on _instantly_ is doing > something damn wrong.
Well, I do like to do "bk sfiles -x" fairly often. But then again I can stat dirs and compare against a cache to make that fast too.
[1] Dual AthlonMP 2200 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |