From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:10:05 -0800 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: 2.5.65-mm4 Message-ID: <11750000.1048479004@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: <20030323191744.56537860.akpm@digeo.com> References: <20030323020646.0dfcc17b.akpm@digeo.com> <9590000.1048475057@[10.10.2.4]> <20030323191744.56537860.akpm@digeo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: >> profile from SDET 64: > > SDET is rather irritating because a) nobody has a copy and b) we don't > even know what it does. Yeah, I know. sorry ... I'm trying to get aim7 done instead. > and b) we don't even know what it does. Lots of shell scripty stuff, I think. >> 82303 __down >> 42835 schedule >> 31323 __wake_up >> 26435 .text.lock.sched >> 15924 .text.lock.transaction > > But judging by this, it's a rebadged dbench. The profile is identical. Not sure what dbench does. But I'm probably doing lots of small reads and writes inside pagecache. > Note that the lock_kernel() contention has been drastically reduced and > we're now hitting semaphore contention. > > Running `dbench 32' on the quad Xeon, this patch took the context switch > rate from 500/sec up to 125,000/sec. > > I've asked Alex to put together a patch for spinlock-based locking in the > block allocator (cut-n-paste from ext2). OK, sounds like a plan. Made a huge impact for ext2, and might enable us to actually be able to see the rest of it through the sem cloud. > That will fix up lock_super(), but I suspect the main problem is the > lock_journal() in journal_start(). I haven't thought about that one yet. Thanks, M. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org