Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 11 Apr 1999 03:44:35 +0200 (CEST) | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |