Re: [PATCH 0/3] i_ino uniqueness: alternate approach -- hash the inodes

Eric Dumazet wrote:
> The problem is you wont see the overhead of insert/delete the inode in a
> global tree, since you keep hot caches.
>
> To have a better estimate of the overhead, I suggest you try to use more
> active pipes like :
>

Eric, thanks for the new program. With that, the situation looks slightly
worse:

hashing patch (pipebench):
sys     1m15.329s
sys     1m16.249s
sys     1m17.169s

unpatched (pipebench):
sys     1m9.836s
sys     1m12.541s
sys     1m14.153s

Which works out to 1.05642174294555027017. So ~5-6%.

-- Jeff

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

References:
- [PATCH 0/3] i_ino uniqueness: alternate approach -- hash the inodes
  - From: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/3] i_ino uniqueness: alternate approach -- hash the inodes
  - From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/3] i_ino uniqueness: alternate approach -- hash the inodes
  - From: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/3] i_ino uniqueness: alternate approach -- hash the inodes
  - From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: 2.6.20-rc5: known unfixed regressions (v3) (part 2)
Next by Date: Re: [patch] scsi: use lock per host instead of per device for shared queue tag host
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/3] i_ino uniqueness: alternate approach -- hash the inodes
Next by thread: [PATCH 1/3] make static counters in new_inode and iunique be 32 bits
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Newbies] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Stuff] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux for the blind] [Linux Resources]