From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:10:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:10:32 -0400 Received: from humbolt.nl.linux.org ([131.211.28.48]:34566 "EHLO humbolt.nl.linux.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:10:26 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: linux-2.4.10-pre5 Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 19:17:55 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.1] Cc: Rik van Riel , Andreas Dilger , Andrea Arcangeli , Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <20010911171041Z16282-1365+40@humbolt.nl.linux.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On September 11, 2001 05:48 pm, Linus Torvalds wrote: > 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). Having it all in cache makes a huge difference. For: ls -R linux >/dev/null it's about 5 seconds cold, about .1 second the second time. A factor of 50! -- Daniel