No, it didn't. I measured read from a 10GB sequentially laid out file with standard benchmarking practices (cold cache, multiple runs, low std. deviation in results, etc.) and here are the results: File created by vanilla Ext3 being read by vanilla Ext3: Total: 3m16.1s User: 0.0.5s Sys: 13.9 File created by mc Ext3 being read by mc Ext3 (with the buffer boundary logic disabled): Total: 3m15.5s User: 0.05s Sys: 13.6s Thanks, Abhishek On Jan 24, 2008 2:49 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 04:12:16 -0500 Abhishek Rai <abhishekrai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I'm wondering about the interaction between this code and the > > > buffer_boundary() logic. I guess we should disable the buffer_boundary() > > > handling when this code is in effect. Have you reviewed and tested that > > > aspect? > > > > Thanks for pointing this out, I had totally missed this issue in my change. I've now made the call to set_buffer_boundary() in ext3_get_blocks_handle() subject to metacluster option being set. > > > > Did it make any performance difference? iirc the buffer_boundary stuff was > worth around 10% on a single linear read of a large, well-laid-out file. > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
