lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Lse-tech] lockmeter results comparing 2.4.17, 2.5.3, and 2.5.5


On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:

> "Martin J. Bligh" wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > looks a little distressing - the hold times on inode_lock by prune_icache
> > look bad in terms of latency (contention is still low, but people are still
> > waiting on it for a very long time). Is this a transient thing, or do people
> > think this is going to be a problem?
>
> inode_lock hold times are a problem for other reasons.

ed mm/vmscan.c <<EOF
/shrink_icache_memory/s/priority/1/
w
q
EOF

and repeat the tests. Unreferenced inodes == useless inodes. Aging is
already taken care of in dcache and anything that had fallen through
is fair game.

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.098 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site