on den 30.03.2005 Klokka 21:47 (-0500) skreiv Lee Revell: > On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 18:39 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Yes. Together with the radix tree-based sorting of dirty requests, > > > > that's pretty much what I've spent most of today doing. Lee, could you > > > > see how the attached combined patch changes your latency numbers? > > > > > > > > > > Different code path, and the latency is worse. See the attached ~7ms > > > trace. > > > > Is a bunch of gobbledygook. Hows about you interpret it for us? > > > > Sorry. When I summarized them before, Ingo just asked for the full > verbose trace. > > The 7 ms are spent in this loop: > > radix_tree_tag_clear+0xe/0xd0 <c01e040e> (nfs_scan_lock_dirty+0xb2/0xf0 > <c01c3a22>) > nfs_set_page_writeback_locked+0xe/0x60 <c01c357e> > (nfs_scan_lock_dirty+0x8d/0xf0 <c01c39fd>) > radix_tree_tag_set+0xe/0xa0 <c01e036e> > (nfs_set_page_writeback_locked+0x4b/0x60 <c01c35bb>) > radix_tree_tag_clear+0xe/0xd0 <c01e040e> (nfs_scan_lock_dirty+0xb2/0xf0 > <c01c3a22>)
Which is basically confirming what the guys from Bull already told me, namely that the radix tree tag stuff is much less efficient that what we've got now. I never saw their patches, though, so I was curious to try it for myself. Cheers, Trond -- Trond Myklebust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
