lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Apr]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateSun, 11 Apr 1999 03:44:35 +0200 (CEST)
FromAndrea Arcangeli <>
SubjectRe: [PFC]: hash instrumentation
On Sat, 10 Apr 1999, Chuck Lever wrote:

>i think that's the key. moving this bit of code from getblk() to
>find_buffer() is a measureable slowdown, it turns out:

Really I was talking about my lru_cache_mkyoung() (that replaced
setbit(PG_referenced)), but yes, the put_last_lru() performance-hurt issue
is equivalent.

>i removed it completely (along with put_last_lru() since now no-one uses
>it), since these lists are no longer LRU, and found that performance

I just noticed in the last days that nobody seems using the lru-buffer
information. Right now it looks like to me that you are perfectly right.

>but this also means that you should be *very* careful where you put your
>"touch_buffer(bh)" because you don't want that in a performance path like
>find_buffer(). leaving touch_buffer() in bread() and brw_page() might be

Hmm, yes probably this is a good idea, I'll think about that tomorrow.
Thanks!!

Andrea Arcangeli


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2010