From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:54:55 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: 2.5.38-mm3 Message-ID: <20020927225455.GW22942@holomorphy.com> References: <20020927152833.D25021@in.ibm.com> <502559422.1033113869@[10.10.2.3]> <20020927224424.A28529@in.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Description: brief message Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020927224424.A28529@in.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Dipankar Sarma Cc: "Martin J. Bligh" , Zwane Mwaikambo , Andrew Morton , lkml , "linux-mm@kvack.org" List-ID: On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 10:44:24PM +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote: > Not sure why it shows up more in -mm, but likely because -mm has > lot less contention on other locks like dcache_lock. Well, the profile I posted was an interactive UP workload, and it's fairly high there. Trimming cycles off this is good for everyone. Small SMP boxen (dual?) used similarly will probably see additional gains as the number of locked operations in fget() will be reduced. There's clearly no contention or cacheline bouncing in my workloads as none of them have tasks sharing file tables, nor is anything else messing with the cachelines. Cheers, Bill -- 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/