Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 14 May 2004 13:24:08 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: dentry bloat. |
| |
On Fri, May 14 2004, Paul Jackson wrote: > > so I guess you do. > > Sorry - I'm being thick. > > Is the new hashing good or bad? > > (Usually, performance is thought of as something 'good', so when you say > it is 'brought down', that sounds 'bad', but since it's ms/iteration, > I'm guessing that you mean to say that the ms/iteration is lower, which > would I guess improves performance, so I'm guessing that bringing > performance down is 'good' in this case, which is not idiomatic to the > particular version of English I happen to speak ... So please favor > this poor old brain of mine and state outright whether the new hash is > good or bad. Does the new hash makes performance better or worse?)
:-)
I can only say the way I read the numbers, the new hashing scores higher ms/iteration which is a bad thing. So when it is stated that 'performance is brought down' I completely agree that it describes the situation, performance is worse than before.
First table shows 2.6.6 (with old hash) doing better than 2.6.6-BK with new hash. It then shows 2.6.6-Bk with old hash doing worse than 2.6.6 still, so it's not just the hash that has slowed things down. 2.6.6-new_hash does worse than 2.6.6-stock.
-- Jens Axboe
- 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/
| |