Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 31 Dec 2000 12:43:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 31 Dec 2000 12:43:09 -0500 Received: from neon-gw.transmeta.com ([209.10.217.66]:1030 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 31 Dec 2000 12:43:00 -0500 Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 09:12:21 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Alexander Viro cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Roman Zippel , "Eric W. Biederman" , Daniel Phillips , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Generic deferred file writing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 31 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote: > > On Sun, 31 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > The other thing is that one of the common cases for writing is consecutive > > writing to the end of the file. Now, you figure it out: if get_block() > > really is a bottle-neck, why not cache the last tree lookup? You'd get a > > 99% hitrate for that common case. > > Because it is not a bottleneck. The _real_ bottleneck is in ext2_new_block(). > Try to profile it and you'll see. > > We could diddle with ext2_get_block(). No arguments. But the real source of > PITA is balloc.c, not inode.c. Look at the group descriptor cache code and > weep. That, and bitmaps handling. I'm not surprised. Just doign pre-allocation 32 blocks at a time would probably help. But that code really should be re-written, I think. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/