Alexander Viro writes:
>
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Richard Gooch wrote:
Sigh. It's taken me far to long to get back to this.
> > > Not only that, actually - order of invalidation was incorrect, IIRC.
> >
> > Let me check I understand what you mean. You're concerned about the
> > way I *invalidate
Hi
This patch is against test3-pre2.
It gives here good performance in the first run, and very bad
in the following ones of dbench 48. I am hitting here problems with
the locking scheme. I get a lot of contention in __wait_on_supper.
Almost all the dbench processes are waiting in:
0xc7
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 03, 2000 at 02:24:07AM +0200, Juan J. Quintela wrote:
> This patch is against test3-pre2.
> It gives here good performance in the first run, and very bad
> in the following ones of dbench 48. I am hitting here problems with
> the locking scheme. I get a lot of contentio
Hi
I have been changing the write of buffers in the IO layer, and I
have found that the system gets a lot of contention in
__wait_on_super(). I am using test3-pre1 + kdb patch. I see also the
stalls/vmstat strange output without the kdb patch. I use it to be
able to see the back-traces. Y
[reformatted]
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Michael W Zappe wrote:
[snip]
> filesystem, CXFS. (originally named Charon, but we discovered two
> companies warring over the trademark, and didn't want to touch that with
> a 40 foot pole... ;-)
Heh. XFS folks mentioned clustered variant of their puppy. Yu
