[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9 writes:
> Rik van Riel writes:
> > On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 wrote:
> > > I found very odd performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9 on a large SMP
> > > server, and I want some clues to investigate it.
> > >
> > > 1) At the 8 cpu configuration, test9 shows extremely inferior
> > > performance.
> > > 2) on test8, 8-cpu configuration shows about 2/3 performance of 4-cpu.
> > ^^^^^ test9 ??

IMHO, the modification of file-system code causes the weird

Most of processes are slept at:

We revert two of test9 files (fs/fcntl.c fs/flock.c), to the previous
version, the performance problem disappeared and it becomes to the
same level as test8.

To narrow the problem, we measured performance of 3 configuration:
1) test9 with test8 fs/fcntl.c, test8 fs/flock.c
2) test9 with test8 fs/fcntl.c
3) test9 with test8 fs/flock.c

Only 3) shows the problem, so the main problem reside in fcntl.c (not
in flock.c).

So it seems:
the web-server, apache-1.3.9 in the redhat-6.1, issues lots of fcntl
to the file and those fcntls collide each other, and the processes
are blocked.

What has happend to fcntl.c?

Computer Systems Laboratory, Fujitsu Labs.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.102 / U:2.904 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site