Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755060Ab2K0F5U (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:57:20 -0500 Received: from mail-oa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.219.46]:41864 "EHLO mail-oa0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751963Ab2K0F5S (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:57:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20121120180949.GG1408@quack.suse.cz> <50AF7901.20401@kernel.dk> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:57:17 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Recent kernel "mount" slow From: Jeff Chua To: Mikulas Patocka Cc: Jens Axboe , Lai Jiangshan , Linus Torvalds , Jan Kara , lkml , linux-fsdevel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 928 Lines: 20 On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Jeff Chua wrote: > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:09 AM, Mikulas Patocka wrote: >> So it's better to slow down mount. > > I am quite proud of the linux boot time pitting against other OS. Even > with 10 partitions. Linux can boot up in just a few seconds, but now > you're saying that we need to do this semaphore check at boot up. By > doing so, it's inducing additional 4 seconds during boot up. By the way, I'm using a pretty fast SSD (Samsung PM830) and fast CPU (2.8GHz). I wonder if those on slower hard disk or slower CPU, what kind of degradation would this cause or just the same? Thanks, Jeff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/