Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:37:40 -0400 | From | "Vishal Patil" <> | Subject | Re: Page cache using B-trees benchmark results |
| |
Hey Andi....This is useful information....I will look into it and let you know.... Many thanks.
- Vishal
On 18 Aug 2006 18:25:54 +0200, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote: > "Vishal Patil" <vishpat@gmail.com> writes: > > > I am attaching the benchmark results for Page Cache Implementation > > using B-trees. I basically ran the tio (threaded i/o) benchmark > > against my kernel (with the B-tree implementation) and the Linux > > I suppose you'll need some more varied benchmarks to get > more solid data. > > > kernel shipped with FC5. Radix tree implementation is definately > > better however the B-tree implementation did not suck that bad :) > > Have you considered trying it again instead of radix tree with > another data structure? There are still plenty of other big > hash tables in the kernel that might benefit from trying > a different approach: > > > dmesg | grep -i hash > PID hash table entries: 4096 (order: 12, 131072 bytes) > Dentry cache hash table entries: 262144 (order: 9, 2097152 bytes) > Inode-cache hash table entries: 131072 (order: 8, 1048576 bytes) > Mount-cache hash table entries: 256 > Dquot-cache hash table entries: 512 (order 0, 4096 bytes) > IP route cache hash table entries: 65536 (order: 7, 524288 bytes) > TCP established hash table entries: 262144 (order: 9, 2097152 bytes) > TCP bind hash table entries: 65536 (order: 7, 524288 bytes) > TCP: Hash tables configured (established 262144 bind 65536) > > e.g. the dentry/inode hashes are an obvious attack point. > > Of course you'll need benchmarks that actually stress them. > > -Andi >
-- Motivation will almost always beat mere talent. - 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/
| |