From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 17:49:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 17:49:09 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:18324 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 17:48:50 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 14:48:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20010925.144843.56057220.davem@redhat.com> To: akpm@zip.com.au Cc: riel@conectiva.com.br, marcelo@conectiva.com.br, andrea@suse.de, torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com Subject: Re: Locking comment on shrink_caches() From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <3BB0F180.4787752C@zip.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20010925.132816.52117370.davem@redhat.com> <3BB0F180.4787752C@zip.com.au> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.0 on Emacs 21.0 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Andrew Morton Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 14:05:04 -0700 "David S. Miller" wrote: > When Kanoj Sarcar was back at SGI testing 32 processor Origin > MIPS systems, pagecache_lock was at the top. But when I asked kumon to test it on his 8-way Xeon, page_cache_lock contention proved to be insignificant. Seems to only be a NUMA thing. I doubt it is only a NUMA thing. I say this for TUX web benchmarks that tended to hold most of the resident set in memory, the page cache locking changes were measured to improve performance significantly on SMP x86 systems. Ingo would be able to comment further. Franks a lot, David S. Miller davem@redhat.com