Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:10:05 -0800 | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | Subject | Re: 2.5.65-mm4 |
| |
>> profile from SDET 64: > > SDET is rather irritating because a) nobody has a copy and b) we don't > even know what it does.
Yeah, I know. sorry ... I'm trying to get aim7 done instead.
> and b) we don't even know what it does.
Lots of shell scripty stuff, I think.
>> 82303 __down >> 42835 schedule >> 31323 __wake_up >> 26435 .text.lock.sched >> 15924 .text.lock.transaction > > But judging by this, it's a rebadged dbench. The profile is identical.
Not sure what dbench does. But I'm probably doing lots of small reads and writes inside pagecache.
> Note that the lock_kernel() contention has been drastically reduced and > we're now hitting semaphore contention. > > Running `dbench 32' on the quad Xeon, this patch took the context switch > rate from 500/sec up to 125,000/sec. > > I've asked Alex to put together a patch for spinlock-based locking in the > block allocator (cut-n-paste from ext2).
OK, sounds like a plan. Made a huge impact for ext2, and might enable us to actually be able to see the rest of it through the sem cloud.
> That will fix up lock_super(), but I suspect the main problem is the > lock_journal() in journal_start(). I haven't thought about that one yet.
Thanks,
M.
- 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/
| |