Richard Braun, on Mon 18 Apr 2016 01:29:13 +0200, wrote: > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 10:24:32PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Looking at ps -feMj, it seems that it's ext2fs which consumes much more > > CPU time, thus increasing overall wallclock time. It'd probably be > > interesting to profile ext2fs, to see what takes longer. Perhaps it's > > the hash table which is less efficient since with the new page cache > > policy there are much more cached files? > > There are undeniably more scalability issues to tackle, but I strongly > think we shouldn't revert the work that has been done.
I'm not saying we should revert the work :) I'm saying I'm reverting it to work around the issue on buildds for now. Perhaps we can also apply the revert on the debian package. Samuel
