lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateSun, 5 Mar 2006 11:22:48 -0800
FromMark Fasheh <>
SubjectRe: Ocfs2 performance bugs of doom
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 11:36:17PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >  -	hash = full_name_hash(name, len);
> 
> err, you might want to calculate that hash outside the spinlock.
Hmm, good catch.

> Maybe have a lock per bucket, too.
That could be an avenue to explore. I guess we probably want to optimize the
actual lookup and memory usage before looking at that.

> A 1MB hashtable is verging on comical.  How may data are there in total?
Yes 1MB is much too big. We're looking right now at 3 lock resources per
inode, so total number of elements depends upon your file system I suppose.
Hopefully I'll have some time today to run some basic tests which may show
us what size strikes a better balance of performance versus memory overhead.
	--Mark

--
Mark Fasheh
Senior Software Developer, Oracle
mark.fasheh@oracle.com
-
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: 2006-03-06 12:10    [from the cache]
©2003-2008