![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
William Lee Irwin III wrote: > > It's unclear what you're estimating the size of. PAGEVEC_SIZE of 62 Overhead of the loaded pagevec. [snip] > > mapping->tree_lock is affected as well as zone->lru_lock. The workload > obviously has to touch the relevant locks for pagevecs to be relevant; > however, the primary factor in the effectiveness of pagevecs is the > lock transfer time, which is not likely to vary significantly on boxen > such as the OSDL STP machines. You should use a workload stressing > mapping->tree_lock via codepaths using radix_tree_gang_lookup() and > getting runtime on OSDL's NUMA-Q or otherwise asking SGI to test its > effects, otherwise you're dorking around with boxen with identical > characteristics as far as batched locking is concerned. > Yeah I forgot about that. I guess it probably would be easier to get contention on the tree lock. - 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 14:06 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||