From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [CALL FOR TESTING] Make Ext3 fsck way faster [2.6.24-rc6 -mm patch] Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:49:05 -0800 Message-ID: <20080123234905.35664ed6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <200801230412.16992.abhishekrai@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, rohitseth@google.com To: Abhishek Rai Return-path: Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:50507 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751992AbYAXHtG (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jan 2008 02:49:06 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200801230412.16992.abhishekrai@google.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 04:12:16 -0500 Abhishek Rai 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.