On 05/07/2013 04:27 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 16:18 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: >> From: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> >> >> While the use of READDIRPLUS is significantly more efficient than >> READDIR followed by many GETATTR calls, it is still less efficient >> than just READDIR if the attributes are not required. >> >> We can get a hint as to whether the application requires attr information >> by looking at whether any ->getattr calls are made between >> ->readdir calls. >> If there are any, then getting the attributes seems to be worth while. >> >> This patch tracks whether there have been recent getattr calls on >> children of a directory and uses that information to selectively >> disable READDIRPLUS on that directory. >> >> The first 'readdir' call is always served using READDIRPLUS. >> Subsequent calls only use READDIRPLUS if there was a getattr on a child >> in the mean time. >> >> The locking of ->d_parent access needs to be reviewed. >> As the bit is simply a hint, it isn't critical that it is set >> on the "correct" parent if a rename is happening, but it is >> critical that the 'set' doesn't set a bit in something that >> isn't even an inode any more. >> >> Acked-by: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@xxxxxxx> >> Cc: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> --- > > Why am I being Cced on this? Because we have the patch still in _3.9_. Dropped now in favor of the commit below. > You have looked at commit d69ee9b85541a69a1092f5da675bd23256dc62af (NFS: > Adapt readdirplus to application usage patterns) which was upstreamed in > Linux 3.5, right? Thanks for letting me know. -- js suse labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
