[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] nfsd optimizations for test10

1/ Do you have any stats showing what sort of speedup this gives -
I'm curious.

I don't have the exact timing stats to show the improvements, but I do have
some stats that I gathered when running SPEC SFS.
Basically with the default racache scheme which only keeps 80 entries in
the table (if I remember the # right), since SPEC SFS works on a lot of
files, I can see that shortly after the SPEC SFS test gets started, the
table is filled up, and nfsd_get_raparam() will never insert any other ra
values to the table, i.e., the racache hit ratio is always 0 for the SPEC
SFS runs, and yet each time when it's called, it scans the entire table
once, i.e., 80 table entries. On the other hand, when hash table is used,
on average, the old files can be removes and new entries can be added
dynamically, so the hit ratio improves and even if there isn't a hit, the
hash chain search is far more better than a table scan. On average, at most
a few list walk will suffice.

2/ Was there a particular reason that you didn't use the
list structures for the hash and lru chains? If not, I suggest
that doing so would be a good idea. It should make the code
clearer and more in-keeping with other code in the kernel.

No there isn't. Oh, well, maybe there is... I used nfscache.c as the base
when I built racache, which didn't use list.h.
Having said that, I just did not try hard to make the kernel more

3/ It is easiest for (many of) us if you just include the patch
in-line in your email messages rather than as an attachment. You
can then be sure that EVERY mail reader can display it
effectively, and Linus has said a number of times that he doesn't
like attachments.
3a/ If you or your mailer insists on using attachments, please make
sure that the mime-type of the attachment is correct - text/plain,
not applications/x-unknown. Again, that makes it a lot easier to
read your patch.

No problem with this. I will do that for the future patches.

4/ I doubt that this is significant enough to go in before 2.4.0-final
but it probably has a reasonable chance of getting in shortly

I really hope that this can go into 2.4, since the changes are really
straight-forward and I've been testing and running this under a wide range
of situations for a couple months in my own patched kernels. I probably
should have sent it a bit earlier. Oh, well.

knfsd maintainer.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

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:0.023 / U:0.656 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site