From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Dec 15 0:50:34 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64A3137B401 for ; Sun, 15 Dec 2002 00:50:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from rootlabs.com (root.org [67.118.192.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AD51743EC2 for ; Sun, 15 Dec 2002 00:50:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nate@rootlabs.com) Received: (qmail 43326 invoked by uid 1000); 15 Dec 2002 08:50:35 -0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 00:50:35 -0800 (PST) From: Nate Lawson To: Michael Ranner Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: setattr() syscall as proposed by phk In-Reply-To: <200212141624.46162.mranner@inode.at> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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. So why is this faster? Something is likely slowing namei() down. However, this should be fixed by improving namei() or whichever subsystem is slowing restore down. Adding new syscalls is not the right answer. -Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message