Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262154AbUDJWzU (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Apr 2004 18:55:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262194AbUDJWzT (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Apr 2004 18:55:19 -0400 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:21144 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262154AbUDJWzQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Apr 2004 18:55:16 -0400 Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 23:55:14 +0100 From: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk To: Szakacsits Szabolcs Cc: Andries Brouwer , fledely , linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Accessing odd last partition sector (was: [Linux-NTFS-Dev] mkntfs dirty volume marking) Message-ID: <20040410225514.GX31500@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> References: <20040410211301.GW31500@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 814 Lines: 16 On Sun, Apr 11, 2004 at 12:23:47AM +0200, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote: > Just one question, in the most common cases the block size ends up between > 512 and 4096 bytes. Depending on how this block size used, it can have a > significant impact on performance (e.g. 512 vs 4096). Is this true or is > it used to be performance independent? Resulting requests are immediately merged anyway. Yes, we get more bio sitting on top of the merged request; however, it's heavily IO-dominated and I would be surprised if you really saw any noticable overhead in that situation. - 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/