Neil,
Here is a set of fixes and answers to you questions/points. The new patch
was tested in my own environment again and worked fine.
1/ Why did you change nfsd_busy into an atomic_t? It is only ever
used or updated inside the Big-Kernel-Lock, so it doesn't need
to be atomic.
I think
On Sunday November 12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This is the recoded racache that uses list_head for several lists, e.g.,
> lru and free lists. I have tested it under SPEC SFS runs, and several other
> NFS loads myself.
Ok, I have taken a closer look at this code:
1/ Why did you cha
Hi,
This is the recoded racache that uses list_head for several lists, e.g.,
lru and free lists. I have tested it under SPEC SFS runs, and several other
NFS loads myself.
Here is the whole patch against test10.
=
diff -ruN nfsd.orig/nfsd.h nfs
1/ Do you have any stats showing what sort of speedup this gives -
I'm curious.
I don't have the exact timing stats to show the improvements, but I do have
some stats that I gathered when running SPEC SFS.
Basically with the default racache scheme which only keeps 80 entries in
the table
On Friday November 10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I made some optimizations on racache in nfsd in test10. The idea is to
> replace with existing fixed length table for readahead cache in NFSD with a
> hash table.
> The old racache is essentially ineffective in dealing with large # of
> fi
Hi,
I made some optimizations on racache in nfsd in test10. The idea is to
replace with existing fixed length table for readahead cache in NFSD with a
hash table.
The old racache is essentially ineffective in dealing with large # of
files, and yet eats CPU cycles in scanning the table (even thoug
6 matches
Mail list logo
