From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 96B5E6B0071 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 20:00:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by wyf23 with SMTP id 23so1453514wyf.14 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:00:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1287774180.23017.228.camel@bobble.smo.corp.google.com> References: <1286580739.3153.57.camel@bobble.smo.corp.google.com> <1287774180.23017.228.camel@bobble.smo.corp.google.com> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 08:00:04 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: VFS scaling evaluation results, redux. From: Lin Ming Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Frank Mayhar Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mrubin@google.com, ext4-team@google.com List-ID: On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 3:03 AM, Frank Mayhar wrote: > After seeing the newer work a couple of weeks ago, I decided to rerun > the tests against Dave Chinner's tree just to see how things fare with > his changes. =A0This time I only ran the "socket test" due to time > constraints and since the "storage test" didn't produce anything > particularly interesting last time. Could you share your "socket test" test case? I'd like to test these vfs scaling patches also. Thanks, Lin Ming -- 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: email@kvack.org