From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.71) id 1SPHd1-0002FP-0c for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 May 2012 14:16:47 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:38550) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SPHcy-0002FI-Py for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 May 2012 14:16:46 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SPHcv-0001iV-Ry for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 May 2012 14:16:44 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:44842) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SPHcv-0001iD-JX for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 May 2012 14:16:41 -0400 Received: by wgbds1 with SMTP id ds1so2994930wgb.30 for ; Tue, 01 May 2012 11:16:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type; bh=3JvfprZfIWFNwBZzarRnpDLK3yLPnvMlFZdmuPfPDP8=; b=qHK4pcECeiK9000PubXE0txcefXOixvs4fBiXzxRKc0uSS2PAMNxh5dj1kfQlbKv2/ dcaAzUJsQaFXEtagv7D9UpfXOA6TAD7NO8trmJx881QtwsCR36JiBuWZbCdU3cHouzCn lzX/1mfHyk3veh8JfkbyCJCQ0kvS5RFuci6VoEzS/z4alr6QwxpjSDq8VI//ASifHbJd hqO60clM3F9x1K3VY8Pt/yI1RYWvzFSxMW0Z3FK4BwmcKfDz6r1L8VtD9VydUzW39oua oGzijCindQk8g6fMENeMbvHXMyF8pB8GbTUdJ7vX1x9lLWDYAtFnS67kwBO0ydL5fwck JzuQ== Received: by 10.180.107.104 with SMTP id hb8mr7034049wib.8.1335896199415; Tue, 01 May 2012 11:16:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from debian.x201.phnet (9-234.197-178.cust.bluewin.ch. [178.197.234.9]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gg2sm60286088wib.7.2012.05.01.11.16.36 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 01 May 2012 11:16:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FA0287E.7090208@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 20:16:30 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?VmxhZGltaXIgJ8+GLWNvZGVyL3BoY29kZXInIFNlcmJpbmVua28=?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.3) Gecko/20120329 Icedove/10.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: grub-devel@gnu.org Subject: Re: ReiserFS reading performance patch References: <4FA02495.7040405@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4FA02495.7040405@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig43D96508E54FA5A0C6901431" X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 74.125.82.49 X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GNU GRUB List-Id: The development of GNU GRUB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 18:16:46 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig43D96508E54FA5A0C6901431 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 01.05.2012 19:59, Vladimir '=CF=86-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > On 27.04.2012 16:05, Albert Zeyer wrote: >> Hi, >> >> A while ago, I improved the grub-mount patches a bit. Mostly: > You've based your work on abandonded branch. All grub-mount parts were > merged back in trunk a long time ago. At least half of the work you've > done was unnecessary with newer version. >> * Write a simplified compile.py script. > Custom compile scripts are likely to break often. If there were any > problem in our compile scripts for your platform it's better to announc= e > it here. >> * Remove nested functions. They don't work on Mac because of stack >> execution protection. > As I said, your approach isn't just ugly it results in bugs. >> * Improve ReiserFS reading performance. > I wrote reiserfs caching a long time ago but it didn'tmake any sizeable= > difference. As for making offset search a logarithmic, here is a patch > by few simple modifications of get_item. Patch contained few unrelated items. Take just reiserfs.c part. With the patch reading 5G takes around a minute. Few more optimisations are still possible though like making get_item scan bnode using binary search but their gain is much smaller and they have no chance of making it into 2.00. While the previously attached patch is more in a gray are and I'm hesitating. > --=20 Regards Vladimir '=CF=86-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko --------------enig43D96508E54FA5A0C6901431 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iF4EAREKAAYFAk+gKH8ACgkQNak7dOguQgnIKwD9GSFVO70VOSqia+gb77L5xsCk +xGfi5K+PT7B1eoo7CgBAL7LYGHLV0hGe3aogZugv4+y7H7/lxrSZ2pP3AejgtcS =kPDM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig43D96508E54FA5A0C6901431--