xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: better perf and memory uage for xfs_fsr? Trivial patch against xfsto

To: xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: better perf and memory uage for xfs_fsr? Trivial patch against xfstools-3.16 included...
From: Linda Walsh <xfs@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 12:30:11 -0800
In-reply-to: <509BAABF.3030608@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <509BAABF.3030608@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.24) Gecko/20100228 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.24 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666
FWIW, the benefit, probably comes from the read-file, as the written file
is written with DIRECT I/O and I can't see that it should make a difference
there.

Another thing I noted -- when xfs_fsr _exits_, ALL of the space it had used
for file cache read into memory -- gets freed - whereas before, it just stayed 
in
the buffer cache and didn't get released until the space was needed.

Linda Walsh wrote:
I wondered why it lumped all this memory reclaiming and thought to try using the posix_fadvise calls in xfs_fsr to tell the kernel what data was unneeded
and such...

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>