Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/2] tmpfs: manage the inode-number by IDR, signed int inum

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jan Kara:
>   What I'm missing with this patch is some quantification of costs this
> change has - i.e., it's surely going to cost us some performance. Can you
> measure how much? I think measuring creation and deletion of lots of empty
> files from 1, 2, 4, 8, .. NR_CPU processes (each process in a separate dir
> to avoid contention on i_mutex) in tmpfs would make sense.

Good point.
I will try.


> One correctness nit below as well.

Thank you very much.


J. R. Okajima
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux