From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] ext3: remove inode constructor Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 02:02:02 -0700 Message-ID: <20070505020202.8edd0110.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20070504130241.c436eb43.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sct@redhat.com, adilger@clusterfs.com, clameter@sgi.com To: Pekka J Enberg Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([65.172.181.25]:43771 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423169AbXEEJCp (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 May 2007 05:02:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Sat, 5 May 2007 11:58:45 +0300 (EEST) Pekka J Enberg wrote: > On Fri, 4 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > I got 100% rejects against this because Christoph has already had > > his paws all over the slab constructor code everywhere. > > > > Was going to fix it up but then decided that we ought to make changes > > like this to ext4 as well. Ideally beforehand, but simultaneously is > > OK as long as it's simple enough. > > I'll send you proper patches for them (and will convert other filesystems > too). May as well. > On Fri, 4 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > btw, for a benchmark I'd suggest just a silly create-10000-files > > tight loop rather than something more complex like postmark. > > Do you want me to redo the benchmarks or are you happy enough with the > postmark numbers? I doubt if this is measurable, really. It'll be something like the difference between an L1 hit and an L2 hit in amongst all the other stuff we do on a per-inode basis.