Sven Breuner wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote on 02/09/2012 04:08 PM: >> I'm not as enthusiastic about adding code to optimize away >> the calls in file_has_acl, unless there are mainstream system/FS >> for which it makes a difference. > > Jim Meyering wrote on 02/09/2012 03:17 PM: >> Here's that simpler patch: >> >> diff --git a/src/ls.c b/src/ls.c >> index f5cd37a..cb9f834 100644 >> [...] > > > Does cifs count as mainstream in this context?
Yes. Which means it is worth making the change to cache failed file_has_acl, too. > Here's a test run on rhel 6.2 (one machine exporting an ext4, the > other one mounting via cifs with default settings), > selinux_challenged_device patch already applied to ls: > > $ strace -c ~/tmp/ls-8.15.34-31eee_patched -l >/dev/null > % time seconds usecs/call calls errors syscall > ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------------- > 44.56 0.186147 3 61440 lstat > 38.94 0.162680 3 61440 61440 getxattr > 15.80 0.065989 122 540 getdents > [...] > > While this kind of large directory might not be very typical as a use > case for cifs, I know at least quite a few cifs filer admins that > would be happy about every single network request they could keep off > of their filers to reduce load. cifs is a big market. Thanks for the info.
