On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 12:11 +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > > So case 2.b is a bit controversial, but I think it is acceptable. After all, by > > > enabling checksumming we already sign up for paying the price of calculating > > > it. The way to improve checksumming performance globally would be to calculate > > > it just before sending buffers to the I/O queue. We'd need some kind of > > > call-back which could be registered by file-systems. > Actually, the most common case of adding orphan inode used > ext4_handle_dirty_super_now() so for that case there is no difference. And > other cases are so rare it really does not matter... So there shouldn't be > any measurable difference. Actually, the entire "orphan" case uses 'ext4_handle_dirty_super_now()', so this code-path is actually unaffected by my patch-set, so I do not have to even worry about it. My changes affect only the 'ext4_handle_dirty_super()' users, and there are only 3 of them, and they are extremely rare one-time events. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
