4.8 ffs_dirpref problem

[Ken Marx]

Don Lewis wrote:
> On 17 Nov, Ken Marx wrote:
> 
>>Don Lewis wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Since I probably won't have time to get anything different tested before
>>>the -CURRENT code freeze, do you have any objections if I just MFC the
>>>code that I previously committed to -CURRENT?  It certainly seems to
>>>perform better than the original code which is still in 4-STABLE.
> 
> 
>>Don, any fine points you put on our corse level of testing here
>>are fine with us. I belive any of the versions you suggest will
>>keep us well out of the crippling behavior that originally brought
>>this up.
> 
> 
> Ok, I'll do the commit as soon as I can do some testing on my -STABLE
> box.
> 

Great. Please let us know when this happens. In fact,
I kind of got lost which you were planning to commit.
Can you point me to it, and I'll do one last overnight run.

Again many thanks for this.

> 
>>I was able to run a couple more tests here, and *belive* that the
>>fix to the hash table in vfs_bio.c will provide some relief
>>for cg block searches when things do fall into the linear search case.
> 
> 
> I'll see about cranking out patch to use a Fibonacci hash.  It'll
> probably be a little while before I can find sufficient time, though.
> 

Ditto the above: thanks/keep us posted. Our clients are
anxious to have a 'final' kernel to run with. I think we'll
just give them what you commit, and sneak the hash fix in with
the security patch or some such. So, no rush, but do let me
know if you think it might happen sooner than, say, 2 weeks
so I can try and get it all in one release to them.

regards,
k.
 

-- 
Ken Marx, kmarx at vicor-nb.com
It is self-evident that we must sharpen our pencils and revise the expectations 
surrounding the requirements.
		- http://www.bigshed.com/cgi-bin/speak.cgi