lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Lse-tech] lockmeter results comparing 2.4.17, 2.5.3, and 2.5.5

--On Wednesday, February 27, 2002 16:48:07 -0500 Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu> wrote:
>
>> > looks a little distressing - the hold times on inode_lock by prune_icache
>> > look bad in terms of latency (contention is still low, but people are still
>> > waiting on it for a very long time). Is this a transient thing, or do people
>> > think this is going to be a problem?
>>
>> inode_lock hold times are a problem for other reasons.
>
> ed mm/vmscan.c <<EOF
> /shrink_icache_memory/s/priority/1/
> w
> q
> EOF
>
> and repeat the tests. Unreferenced inodes == useless inodes. Aging is
> already taken care of in dcache and anything that had fallen through
> is fair game.
>

I applied your patch and reran the tests. Looks like you solved the problem:

SPINLOCKS HOLD WAIT
UTIL CON MEAN( MAX ) MEAN( MAX )(% CPU) TOTAL NOWAIT SPIN RJECT NAME

7.1% 0.7us( 19ms) 7.7us( 17ms)( 2.6%) 779799309 92.9% 7.1% 0.00% *TOTAL*

0.16% 0.29% 0.6us( 91us) 2.2us( 46us)(0.00%) 5495642 99.7% 0.29% 0% inode_lock

0.90% 0.47% 1.4us( 19ms) 280us( 17ms)(0.10%) 12681192 99.5% 0.47% 0% kernel_flag

The results are again stored at http://lse.sf.net/locking .

Hanna



-
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 13:20    [W:0.078 / U:0.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site