Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 10:12:14 +0100 From: phk@FreeBSD.ORG To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Cc: Michael Ranner <mranner@inode.at>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: setattr() syscall as proposed by phk Message-ID: <49290.1039943534@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 15 Dec 2002 00:50:35 PST." <Pine.BSF.4.21.0212150042291.41793-100000@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.BSF.4.21.0212150042291.41793-100000@root.org>, Nate Lawson wri tes: >On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Michael Ranner wrote: >> Hi there! >> >> I have implemented the setattr(), lsetattr() and fsetattr() syscalls for >> 4.7 and 5.0. You can review my code on http://www.ranner.jawa.at/freebsd.php. >> >> Comments and suggestions are welcome. > >I don't mean to be rude but I doubt the utility of this whole >plan. dump/restore are done on disk devices which are at least an order >of magnitude slower than a syscall boundary crossing. Going from 4 >syscalls to 1 can't make a bit of difference in restore(8) performance. You are wrong about restore: restore is done on a mounted filesystem. >So why is this faster? Something is likely slowing namei() down. Because 1 syscall and 2 namei calls are faster than 4 syscalls and four namei calls. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49290.1039943534>