Re: [patch 1/2] ufd v1 - unsequential O(1) fdmap core

[Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 06:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> > You add conditional branches on very hot spots.
> 
> Keep BS for the ones you argue usually, and that are not able to reply.
> You *still* two bitmaps, because allocation spaces are far apart. So the 
> "if" will still be there.

I actually read your patches and spent time to see the pros and cons.

If you dont need reviewers, please dont post your patches on lkml.

If I am not mistaken, you added a test in fget()/fget_light(), which is a known hot point for said huge processes.

fget() dont need to access the bitmap at all. Using fd_slots means less (50%) file pointers per cache line.

On my machines, there is a ratio of 100/1 in cpu time for fget(),fget_light() against get_unused_fd().

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