On 02/28/2012 09:46 AM, David Dillow wrote: > I tend to agree that the ~2 second improvements reported so far are not > compelling, but I see those as the developers case. I'm more interested > in the users' case -- is that 14 seconds Cong reported real? I suspect that the 14 seconds difference was between a cold cache (first run) and a warm cache (third run). There wasn't anything non-real about it, but the cache effect was much larger than the lazy/non-lazy algorithm. The measurements that I reported yesterday were all warm-cache cases, and I saw much closer improvement in wall-clock time (several percent) for lazy, in both testimage and hostimage. This is consistent with the hypothesis that the improvement was due to the lazy case using one (or a small handful) cpio of many files at a time, versus the non-lazy case doing one /bin/cp for each file. The savings is in reduced usage of fork[clone]+execve+ld_linux.so+wait. -- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe initramfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
