Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756774AbZISJTI (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Sep 2009 05:19:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756463AbZISJTH (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Sep 2009 05:19:07 -0400 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:51214 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754668AbZISJTF (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Sep 2009 05:19:05 -0400 Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:19:12 +0200 From: Arjan van de Ven To: Jim Meyering Cc: Theodore Tso , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: efficient access to "rotational"; new fcntl? Message-ID: <20090919111912.34a35f95@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <87k4zvpak6.fsf@meyering.net> References: <87vdjgqcbd.fsf@meyering.net> <20090918221658.GB28781@mit.edu> <87pr9npdlc.fsf@meyering.net> <20090919103149.54258081@infradead.org> <87k4zvpak6.fsf@meyering.net> Organization: Intel X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.2 (GTK+ 2.14.7; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by casper.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1487 Lines: 37 On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:07:21 +0200 Jim Meyering wrote: > > btw have you given thought about using threads as part of rm -r[f] ? > > (would make the unlinks of unrelated directories/files asynchronous) > > While it is certainly a nicely parallelizable process, > rm usually runs so quickly that I doubt it'd be worthwhile. > If you know in advance that parallelizing a particular recursive > removal would give a significant benefit, it's probably best to do it > via e.g., xargs --max-procs=N. deleting large files has several seeks kind of cost (small files is cheap). At least on ext3. I guess with btrfs being the future it's indeed not worth doing in userspace. > However, sort *would* benefit, and some UCLA students implemented that > for a term project. Unfortunately, the project is stalled because the > implementation was not efficient enough, and no one has found the > time to improve it since. parallel sort... call me skeptical. My gut feeling is that you'll get killed by communication overhead. (sort seems to be more communication than raw cpu use) -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- 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/