Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:49:05 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Abhishek Rai <abhishekrai@google.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
       rohitseth@google.com
Subject: Re: [CALL FOR TESTING] Make Ext3 fsck way faster [2.6.24-rc6 -mm
 patch]
Message-Id: <20080123234905.35664ed6.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <200801230412.16992.abhishekrai@google.com>
References: <200801230412.16992.abhishekrai@google.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 911
Lines: 16

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 04:12:16 -0500 Abhishek Rai <abhishekrai@google.com> wrote:
> > I'm wondering about the interaction between this code and the
> > buffer_boundary() logic.  I guess we should disable the buffer_boundary()
> > handling when this code is in effect.  Have you reviewed and tested that
> > aspect?
> 
> Thanks for pointing this out, I had totally missed this issue in my change. I've now made the call to set_buffer_boundary() in ext3_get_blocks_handle() subject to metacluster option being set.
> 

Did it make any performance difference?  iirc the buffer_boundary stuff was
worth around 10% on a single linear read of a large, well-laid-out file.
--
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/