On Oct 9 09:07, Eric Blake wrote: > On 10/09/2014 08:51 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >> The whole point of d_type is for optimization, to tell a process when it > >> can avoid the overhead of an lstat() because the system was able to > >> obtain the information in a cheaper manner. But if you have to resort > >> to an lstat() to get the information, then you are wasting cycles on the > >> case of a user that doesn't care about d_type. I'd rather we always > >> return DT_UNKNOWN if the only way we'd get a better type is by calling > >> lstat(). > > > > I see. The idea here was to try and, at least on my machine, it > > was still *very* fast, likely because the whole thing occurs only > > in globally allocated memory and there's no disk access or paging > > involved. > > > > The question is, what exactly do we lose? /proc/sys isn't often > > accessed at all (I guess) and what could be gained? Yaakov asked > > for setting d_type under /proc, so he might enlighten us which > > tools make heavy use of the stuff, so the net gain is > 0... > > Some modes of 'find' and 'ls' (such as ls -F) are faster if d_type is > accurate (because they avoided an lstat); there, returning DT_UNKNOWN > requires the lstat. In other cases (like ls -l) an lstat is always > required. Anywhere that lstat is slow, embedding an lstat into d_type > determination as well as a followup lstat is going to make directory > traversal twice as slow (well, maybe the second call is faster because > of caching effects); conversely, anywhere that lstat is not required by > the caller, it is wasted effort during the readdir. But as you say, > lstat in /proc/sys is mostly stuff in memory and already fast, so maybe > it doesn't hurt to leave it in. I made a quick test on 64 bit W8.1 and a non-opimized Cygwin DLL. time ls -l --color=always /proc/sys/Device/ takes a constant 0.53 secs without my patch, and a constant 0.83 secs with my patch. So it's actually rather noticable, being more than 50% slower. It's hard to justify such a hit... Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat