Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 4 May 2004 08:12:23 -0500 | From | "Jose R. Santos" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] dentry and inode cache hash algorithm performance changes. |
| |
* Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> [2004-04-30 15:02:56 -0700]: > Also, I'd be interested in understanding what the input to the hashing > functions looked like in this testing. It could be that the new hash just > happens to work well with one particular test's dataset. Please convince > us otherwise ;)
Andrew - Is there any workload you want me to run to show that this hash function is going to be equal or better that the one already provided in Linux?
Remember that my claim is not the this hash function will be better for every IO workload. I claim it should not have worst performance than the default hash function but on some workloads it should perform better. The workloads that this should show improvements are those that use GB of memory to store inode and dentry cache data. I have run some test on my old BP6 machine and other than a small improvements while running find, I did not see any improvements but no regressions either. Again, if you have a particular workload in mind, Ill be happy to run it on some of my systems.
Thanks,
-JRS - 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/
| |