Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 Apr 1999 21:20:43 +0200 (CEST) | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: [PFC]: hash instrumentation |
| |
On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, Chuck Lever wrote:
>logic to see what you tried out. i took a stock 2.2.5 kernel and took out >the "run_task_queue()" in wakeup_bdflush() just to see what that it would >do. that made things a little worse, so i'm guessing you also had some
The run_task_queue() removal was a minor issue according to me.
My point is that if we are going to sleep and wakeup bdflush we don't need to run_task_queue() _before_ running bdflush(). When bdflush will start some request, it will then call run_task_queue at the end.
So the removal wasn't intented to get performances but to remove a thing that made no sense to me and that should change nothing.
>i'm discovering that a 13 bit hash mitigates the spikey size distribution >in the page hash *better* than the +offset change. although i've been >able to push the system into swap, i still haven't seen any degenerate >hash behavior that's as bad as the buffer cache's hash function.
;)
To make sure that you have many swap cache entries allocated in the hash-buckets you must press SYSRQ+M and check the number of swap cache pages. If the number is high and the distribution is good it even without +offset it means that it didn't relevant differences.
>alignment mod in your latest patch. the numbers were about the same as >before. it would probably be a good idea if someone could actually take a
Well I think I'll remove it. Mark was right that since we are always single threaded we can't generate a ping-pong between cachelines on different CPUs (as instead happens in the irq-struct case). But I wanted to get numbers before removing it ;)). Thanks.
Andrea Arcangeli
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |