Re: [PATCH] 2.5: push BKL out of llseek

From: John Hawkes (hawkes@sgi.com)
Date: Fri Feb 01 2002 - 14:29:11 EST

Next message: Adam McKenna: "should I trust 'free' or 'top'?"
Previous message: Craig Schlenter: "Re: [lkml] Re: A modest proposal -- We need a patch penguin"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

From: "Dave Jones" <davej@suse.de>
> did you benchmark with anything other than dbench ?

I've done substantial AIM7 benchmarking on a 28p ia64 NUMA system, and
llseek's BKL usage is a significant contributor to poor scaling. For
500 AIM7 "tasks" and ext2 filesystems, waiting on the BKL consumes about
half of the available CPU cycles, and sys_lseek()'s usage is the most
significant cycle waster, followed by ext2_get_block() and
ext2_write_inode(). Anton's llseek patch from last November does make
a measurable improvement in AIM7 throughput.

-- John Hawkes hawkes@sgi.com

- 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/

Next message: Adam McKenna: "should I trust 'free' or 'top'?"
Previous message: Craig Schlenter: "Re: [lkml] Re: A modest proposal -- We need a patch penguin"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 21:00:17 EST