From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
Jacek Luczak <difrost.kernel@gmail.com>,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: getdents - ext4 vs btrfs performance
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 14:10:53 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120305131053.GH6643@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120302193215.GB22215@thunk.org>
On Fri 02-03-12 14:32:15, Ted Tso wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 09:26:51AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> It would be interesting to have a project where someone added
> fallocate() support into libelf, and then added some hueristics into
> ext4 so that if a file is fallocated to a precise size, or if the file
> is fully written and closed before writeback begins, that we use this
> to more efficiently pack the space used by the files by the block
> allocator. This is a place where I would not be surprised that XFS
> has some better code to avoid accelerated file system aging, and where
> we could do better with ext4 with some development effort.
AFAIK XFS people actually prefer that applications let them do their work
using delayed allocation and do not interfere with fallocate(2) calls. The
problem they have with fallocate(2) is that it forces you to allocate
blocks while with delayed allocation you can make the decision about
allocation later. So for small files which completely fit into pagecache
before they get pushed out by writeback, they can make better decisions
from delayed allocation. Just dumping my memory from some other thread...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-05 13:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-29 13:52 getdents - ext4 vs btrfs performance Jacek Luczak
2012-02-29 13:55 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-02-29 14:07 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-02-29 14:21 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-02-29 14:42 ` Chris Mason
2012-02-29 14:55 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-03-01 13:35 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-03-01 13:50 ` Hillf Danton
2012-03-01 14:03 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-03-01 14:18 ` Chris Mason
2012-03-01 14:43 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-03-01 14:51 ` Chris Mason
2012-03-01 14:57 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-03-01 18:42 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-03-02 9:51 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-03-01 4:44 ` Theodore Tso
2012-03-01 14:38 ` Chris Mason
2012-03-02 10:05 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-03-02 14:00 ` Chris Mason
2012-03-02 14:16 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-03-02 14:26 ` Chris Mason
2012-03-02 19:32 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-03-02 19:50 ` Chris Mason
2012-03-05 13:10 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2012-03-03 22:41 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-03-04 10:25 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-03-05 11:32 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-03-06 0:37 ` Chris Mason
2012-03-08 17:02 ` Phillip Susi
2012-03-09 11:29 ` Lukas Czerner
2012-03-09 14:34 ` Chris Mason
2012-03-10 0:09 ` Andreas Dilger
2012-03-10 4:48 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-03-11 10:30 ` Andreas Dilger
2012-03-11 16:13 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-03-15 10:42 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-03-18 20:56 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-03-13 19:05 ` Phillip Susi
2012-03-13 19:53 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-03-13 20:22 ` Phillip Susi
2012-03-13 21:33 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-03-14 2:48 ` Yongqiang Yang
2012-03-14 2:51 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-03-14 14:17 ` Zach Brown
2012-03-14 16:48 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-03-14 17:37 ` Zach Brown
2012-03-14 8:12 ` Lukas Czerner
2012-03-14 9:29 ` Yongqiang Yang
2012-03-14 9:38 ` Lukas Czerner
2012-03-14 12:50 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-03-14 14:34 ` Lukas Czerner
2012-03-14 17:02 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-03-14 19:17 ` Chris Mason
2012-03-14 14:28 ` Phillip Susi
2012-03-14 16:54 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-03-10 3:52 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-03-15 7:59 ` Jacek Luczak
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-02-29 13:31 Jacek Luczak
2012-02-29 13:51 ` Chris Mason
2012-02-29 14:00 ` Lukas Czerner
2012-02-29 14:05 ` Chris Mason
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120305131053.GH6643@quack.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=difrost.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).