Hi Jeff,
(Disclaimer, switched to gmail, responding via gmail web interface, hopefully this formats well.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Jeff Darcy <jdarcy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> And in the past, if not now, are contributing factors to small file
> performance issues.
I'm not quite seeing the connection here. Which macros are you
thinking of, and how does the fact that they're macros instead of
functions make them bad for small-file performance? AFAIK the
problem with some of the macros in storage/posix is the redundant
xattr calls etc. that some of them make. Is the idea here that
with inline code (not inline functions) each instance could be
more closely tuned to a particular need and avoid the redundant
calls?
From my past analysis of a small file workload strace, https://gist.github.com/portante/5029518, I saw that the macros hid gratuitous behaviors. It seems that we need to be careful that macros are used knowing what they are doing. Digging through the strace (annotated from code that I am sure has since changed) it was quite amazing to see what happens for one operation.
-peter
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
