Chris Mason <mason@suse.com> writes:
> On Wednesday, August 01, 2001 04:57:35 PM +0200 Daniel Phillips
> <phillips@bonn-fries.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday 31 July 2001 21:07, Chris Mason wrote:
> >> This has been tested a little more now, both ext2 (1k, 4k) and
> >> reiserfs. dbench and iozone testing don't show any difference, but I
> >> need to spend a little more time on the benchmarks.
> >
> > It's impressive that such seemingly radical surgery on the vm innards
> > is a) possible and b) doesn't make the system perform noticably worse.
>
> radical surgery is always possible ;-) But, I was expecting better
> performance results than I got. I'm trying a few other things out here,
> more details will come if they work.
Hmm. I would expect that could could entirely avoid the issue of which
hash chain to put pages on if you did the block devices in the page cache
thing. The the current buffer cache interface becomes just a
backwards compatibility layer which should make things cleaner.
Eric
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 07 2001 - 21:00:39 EST