[vbox-dev] [PATCH] fixes and improvements to solaris (guest) shared folders

[Ramshankar]

I've integrated upto the readdir coalesing patch (07) and I've been
doing some testing with each of the patches.

With patch 7, with readdir coalesing, I don't seem to achieve as much of
a performance gain seems to marginal. How exactly did you test this
since you claimed a much higher boost in performance?

Regards,
Ram.


On Wed, 2010-06-23 at 17:50 -0700, Life is hard, and then you die wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 02:23:57PM +0200, Ramshankar wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-06-23 at 04:51 -0700, Life is hard, and then you die wrote:
> > > Ok, makes sense. I took a closer look at the Solaris coding standards
> > > guide and realized I got a couple things wrong (mainly
> > > line-continuations and switch statements); so I reworked the patches
> > > to follows those better.
> > > 
> > > Also, while looking at the latest linux shared-folders changes today I
> > > realized that I had fallen into the same trap with the readdir fix
> > > (patch 06) as the linux code (http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/5251),
> > > i.e. it wasn't properly resetting the directory listing for apps doing
> > > a seekdir. I've fixed that now and tested it, both using the 'svnadmin
> > > load' mentioned in the above ticket as well as with a small test-suite
> > > I wrote for this.
> > > 
> > > Attached therefore you'll find a new set of patches which include both
> > > the style fixes and the readdir fix, but are otherwise identical to
> > > the previous ones.
> > > 
> > > > I'll take a look at the patches you provided and get back to you
> > > > regarding them. Thanks a lot for the effort and time on this.
> > > 
> > > Thanks.
> > 
> > Great! Thanks for the quick fixes. I've begun reviewing & committing
> > your patches. Since these patches are significant, I'll mentioned your
> > name as "Ronald" (no mail address included) as a contributor in the
> > source files involved, I hope this is agreeable. If you don't want to be
> > mentioned for some reason let me know.
> 
> Sounds good. Either way is fine with me.
> 
> > I will mail you here once I complete reviewing, committing and testing
> > these patches.
> 
> Thanks - if you'd like me to rework/change anything, just let me know.
> 
> A few things I should mention:
> 
>  - with the 08_stat_coalesce.patch the sfprov_get_{a,m,c}time()
>    and sfprov_get_mode() functions are not used anymore; I left them
>    in as I wasn't sure what the full reasoning behind the original
>    approach was, but they could be deleted now.
> 
>  - the sfprov_get_size() function could also easily be removed by
>    replacing the last remaining call to it with an sfnode_get_stat()
>    call. Again, I didn't do so because I wasn't completely sure if you
>    were thinking of other providers and whether you wanted vboxfs_prov
>    interface to be as fine-grained as possible or not.
> 
>  - lastly, I realize the stat-caching may be controversial (patch 09).
>    Maybe defaulting it to off (DEF_STAT_TTL_MS=0) may make people more
>    comfortable.
> 
> 
>   Cheers,
> 
>   Ronald
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> vbox-dev mailing list
> vbox-dev at virtualbox.org
> http://vbox.innotek.de/mailman/listinfo/vbox-dev