- Original Message -
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Steven Whitehouse
> wrote:
> > That looks good to me, and I assume that it should be faster too?
>
> I did some tests with a directory tree with 3439 directories and 51556
> files in it.
>
> In that tree, 47313
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> That looks good to me, and I assume that it should be faster too?
I did some tests with a directory tree with 3439 directories and 51556
files in it.
In that tree, 47313 or 86% of the 54995 files and directories
- Original Message -
> Here is an updated version of this patch, please review.
>
> Thanks,
> Andreas
>
> --
>
> Instead of submitting a READ_SYNC bio for the inode and a READA bio for
> the inode's extended attributes through submit_bh, submit a single READ
> bio for both strough
Here is an updated version of this patch, please review.
Thanks,
Andreas
--
Instead of submitting a READ_SYNC bio for the inode and a READA bio for
the inode's extended attributes through submit_bh, submit a single READ
bio for both strough submit_bio when possible. This can be more
efficient
Hi,
On 12/11/15 20:15, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
Here is an updated version of this patch, please review.
Thanks,
Andreas
That looks good to me, and I assume that it should be faster too?
Steve.
--
Instead of submitting a READ_SYNC bio for the inode and a READA bio for
the inode's
Hi,
On 01/11/15 19:02, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
Instead of submitting separate bio for the inode and its extended
attributes, submit a single bio for both when possible. The entire
request becomes a normal read, not a readahead.
To keep track of the buffer heads that make up the bio, we
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 01/11/15 19:02, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
>>
>> Instead of submitting separate bio for the inode and its extended
>> attributes, submit a single bio for both when possible. The entire
>> request