From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] write-tree performance problems Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:19:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <200504191250.10286.mason@suse.com> <200504201323.05447.mason@suse.com> <200504201504.59541.mason@suse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Apr 20 21:15:31 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DOKeN-0004r2-Tp for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:14:16 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261743AbVDTTSL (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:18:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261692AbVDTTSK (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:18:10 -0400 Received: from fire.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:48001 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261743AbVDTTSB (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:18:01 -0400 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j3KJHts4024775 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:17:55 -0700 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j3KJHs5t022775; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:17:55 -0700 To: Chris Mason In-Reply-To: <200504201504.59541.mason@suse.com> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.35__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.109 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Chris Mason wrote: > > Well, the difference there should be pretty hard to see with any benchmark. > But I was being lazy...new patch attached. This one gets the same perf > numbers, if this is still wrong then I really need some more coffee. I did my preferred version. Makes a big difference here too. It would be nicer for the cache to make the index file "header" be a "footer", and write it out last - that way we'd be able to do the SHA1 as we write rather than doing a two-pass thing. That's for another time. Linus