Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758404AbZJMB1L (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:27:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757420AbZJMB1K (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:27:10 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:44275 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754767AbZJMB1J (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:27:09 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:26:27 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Nick Piggin Cc: Jens Axboe , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Ravikiran G Thirumalai , Peter Zijlstra , Linus Torvalds , samba-technical@lists.samba.org Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] store-free path walking Message-ID: <20091013012627.GA19089@infradead.org> References: <20091006064919.GB30316@wotan.suse.de> <20091006101414.GM5216@kernel.dk> <20091006122623.GE30316@wotan.suse.de> <20091006124941.GS5216@kernel.dk> <20091007085849.GN30316@wotan.suse.de> <20091007095657.GB8703@kernel.dk> <20091012035843.GC25882@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091012035843.GC25882@wotan.suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.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: 1089 Lines: 21 On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 05:58:43AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > Tridge, Samba people: measuring vfs performance with dbench > in my effort to improve Linux vfs scalability has shown up > the statvfs syscall you make to be the final problematic > issue for this workload. In particular reading /proc/mounts > that glibc does to impement it. We could add complexity to > the kernel to try improving it, or we could extend the > statfs syscall so glibc can avoid the issue (requiring > glibc upgrade). But I would like to know whether samba > really uses statvfs() significantly? Not sure if it's the reason why Samba uses it, but many portable applications use statvfs because that is the standardizes one in XPG / recent Posix while statfs is just a BSD extension Linux picked up. So making sure statvfs goes fast is a pretty essential thing. -- 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/