--On Friday, September 20, 2002 05:03:58 -0700 William Lee Irwin III <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 01:29:28PM +0530, Maneesh Soni wrote:
>>> For a 32-way system fastwalk will perform badly from dcache_lock
>>> point of view, basically due to increased lock hold time.
>>> dcache_rcu-12 should reduce dcache_lock contention and hold time. The
>>> patch uses RCU infrastructer patch and read_barrier_depends patch.
>>> The patches are available in Read-Copy-Update section on lse site at
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 01:06:28AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> ISTR Hubertus mentioning this at OLS, and it sounded like a problem to
>> me. I'm doing some runs with this to see if it fixes the problem.
I mentioned it at OLS too. It was the point of my talk. Next
time I will request a non 10am time slot!
> take its place. Ugly. OTOH the qualitative difference is striking. The
> interactive responsiveness of the machine, even when entirely unloaded,
> is drastically improved, along with such nice things as init scripts
> and kernel compiles also markedly faster. I suspect this is just the
> wrong benchmark to show throughput benefits with.
> Also notable is that the system time was significantly reduced though
> I didn't log it. Essentially a long period of 100% system time is
> entered after a certain point in the benchmark, during which there are
> few (around 60 or 70) context switches in a second, and the duration
> of this period was shortened.
Bill, you are saying that replacing dcache_rcu significantly
improved system response time among other things?
Perhaps it is time to reconsider replacing fastwalk with dcache_rcu.
Viro? What are your objections?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
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 : Mon Sep 23 2002 - 22:00:31 EST