[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091013012627.GA19089@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:26:27 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
samba-technical@...ts.samba.org
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] store-free path walking
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 05:58:43AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Tridge, Samba people: measuring vfs performance with dbench
> in my effort to improve Linux vfs scalability has shown up
> the statvfs syscall you make to be the final problematic
> issue for this workload. In particular reading /proc/mounts
> that glibc does to impement it. We could add complexity to
> the kernel to try improving it, or we could extend the
> statfs syscall so glibc can avoid the issue (requiring
> glibc upgrade). But I would like to know whether samba
> really uses statvfs() significantly?
Not sure if it's the reason why Samba uses it, but many portable
applications use statvfs because that is the standardizes one in
XPG / recent Posix while statfs is just a BSD extension Linux picked
up. So making sure statvfs goes fast is a pretty essential thing.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists