[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2590640.1585757211@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 17:06:51 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, dray@...hat.com,
Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>, Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
andres@...razel.de, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
Subject: Re: Upcoming: Notifications, FS notifications and fsinfo()
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
> I've still not heard a convincing argument in favor of a syscall.
>From your own results, scanning 10000 mounts through mountfs and reading just
two values from each is an order of magnitude slower without the effect of the
dentry/inode caches. It gets faster on the second run because the mountfs
dentries and inodes are cached - but at a cost of >205MiB of RAM. And it's
*still* slower than fsinfo().
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists