On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> But see my post in this thread where I created a simple test to show that,
> even when we pre-read *all* the inodes in a directory, there is no great
> performance win.
Note that I suspect that because the inode tree _is_ fairly dense, you
don't actually need to do much read-ahead in most cases. Simply because
you automatically do read-ahead _always_: when somebody reads a 128-byte
inode, you (whether you like it or not) always "read-ahead" the 31 inodes
around it on a 4kB filesystem.
So we _already_ do read-ahead by a "factor of 31". Whether we can improve
that or not by increasing it to 63 inodes, who knows?
I actually think that the "start read-ahead for inode blocks when you do
readdir" might be a bigger win, because that would be a _new_ kind of
read-ahead that we haven't done before, and might improve performance for
things like "ls -l" in the cold-cache situation..
(Although again, because the inode is relatively small to the IO cache
size, it's probably fairly _hard_ to get a fully cold-cache inode case. So
I'm not sure even that kind of read-ahead would actually make any
difference at all).
Linus
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 15 2001 - 21:00:33 EST