| To: | Linda Walsh <xfs@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: better perf and memory uage for xfs_fsr? Trivial patch against xfstools-3.16 included... |
| From: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 9 Nov 2012 08:39:11 +1100 |
| Cc: | xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <509C1653.7050906@xxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <509BAABF.3030608@xxxxxxxxx> <509C1653.7050906@xxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 12:30:11PM -0800, Linda Walsh wrote: > 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. Hmmm, so it does. I think that's probably the bug that needs to be fixed, not so much using posix_fadvise.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: better perf and memory uage for xfs_fsr? Trivial patch against xfstools-3.16 included..., Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [GIT PULL] XFS update for 3.2-rc2, Ben Myers |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: better perf and memory uage for xfs_fsr? Trivial patch against xfstools-3.16 included..., Linda Walsh |
| Next by Thread: | Re: better perf and memory uage for xfs_fsr? Trivial patch against xfstools-3.16 included..., Linda Walsh |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |