Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 14 May 2004 16:48:00 +0530 | From | Dipankar Sarma <> | Subject | Re: dentry bloat. |
| |
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 04:03:23PM +0530, Raghavan wrote: > > Environment - 2-way P4 Xeon 2.4MHz SMP box with 4.5GB RAM. > Tests were run for 10 iterations to calculate the milliseconds/iteration > and then mean and deviation were calculated.
I think it is microseconds/iteration. Lesser the better.
> Kernel version Mean Standard Deviation > --------------- ---- ------------------ > > 2.6.6-rc3(baseline) 10578 221 > > 2.6.6 10280 110
So alignment changes helped.
> > 2.6.6-bk 10862 30
Hash function changes regressed.
> 2.6.6-mm1 10626 36
dentry size change patchset helps.
> To find out if the huge performance dip between the 2.6.6 > and 2.6.6-bk is because of the hash changes, I removed the hash patch > from 2.6.6-bk and applied it to 2.6.6. > > 2.6.6-bk with old hash 10685 34 > > 2.6.6 with new hash 10496 125 > > Looks like the new hashing function has brought down the performance. > Also some code outside dcache.c and inode.c seems to have pushed down > the performance in 2.6.6-bk.
OK, I am confused. These numbers show that the new hash function is better. It contradicts your conclusion. And why are you comparing 2.6.6-bk+old has with 2.6.6+new hash ? Why not 2.6.6-bk vs. 2.6.6-bk-with-old-hash ?
Thanks Dipankar
- 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/
| |