From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 23:27:59 -0800 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: 2.5.65-mm4 Message-ID: <20030324072759.GH30140@holomorphy.com> References: <20030323191744.56537860.akpm@digeo.com> <20030323231716.44d7e306.akpm@digeo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030323231716.44d7e306.akpm@digeo.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 11:17:16PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > In the case of ext2 the codepath which needs to be locked is very small, and > converting it to use a per-blockgroup spinlock was a big win on the 16-way > numas, and perhaps 8-way x440's. On 4-way xeon and ppc64 the effects were > very small indeed - 1.5% on xeon, zero on ppc64. And also very large on 32x NUMA-Q. -- wli -- 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