←back to thread

lsr: ls with io_uring

(rockorager.dev)
335 points mpweiher | 3 comments | 18 Jul 25 12:40 UTC | HN request time: 0.016s | source
Show context
fermuch ◴[18 Jul 25 13:14 UTC] No.44604316[source]▶
The link isn't working for me. For those who were able to see it: does it improve anything by using that instead of what ls does now??
replies(3): >>44604334 #>>44604354 #>>44604356 #
ta988 ◴[18 Jul 25 13:19 UTC] No.44604354[source]▶
70% faster, but more importantly 35x times less syscalls.
replies(2): >>44604411 #>>44604739 #
eviks ◴[18 Jul 25 13:26 UTC] No.44604411[source]▶
Is there a noticeable benefit of this huge syscall reduction?
replies(1): >>44604442 #
1. Imustaskforhelp ◴[18 Jul 25 13:28 UTC] No.44604442{3}[source]▶
Yes I just checked it after installing strace

strace -c ls gave me this

100.00 0.002709 13 198 5 total

strace -c eza gave me this

100.00 0.006125 12 476 48 total

strace -c lsr gave me this

100.00 0.001277 33 38 total

So seeing the number of syscalls in the calls directory

198 : ls

476 : eza

33 : lsr

A meaningful difference indeed!

replies(1): >>44605184 #
2. richardwhiuk ◴[18 Jul 25 14:42 UTC] No.44605184[source]▶
That's just observing there is a difference, not explaining why that's a good thing.
replies(1): >>44606270 #
3. fpoling ◴[18 Jul 25 16:01 UTC] No.44606270[source]▶
syscalls are expensive and their relative latency compared with the rest of code only grow especially in view of mitigations against cache-related and other other hardware bugs.