From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 02:58:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 02:58:29 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:36760 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 02:58:20 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 23:57:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20010925.235718.95903768.davem@redhat.com> To: akpm@zip.com.au Cc: dipankar@in.ibm.com, marcelo@connectiva.com.br, riel@connectiva.com.br, andrea@suse.de, torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hawkes@engr.sgi.com Subject: Re: Locking comment on shrink_caches() From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <3BB16834.4393EEA3@zip.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20010926103424.A8893@in.ibm.com> <3BB16834.4393EEA3@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 22:31:32 -0700 Here are kumon's test results from March, with and without the hashed lock patch: Please elaborate on what the webbench-3.0 static gets was really doing. Was this test composed of multiple accesses to the same or a small set of files? If so, that is indeed the case where the page cache locking patches won't help at all. The more diversified the set of files being accessed, the greater the gain from the locking changes. You have to encourage the cpus at least have a chance at accessing different hash chains :-) Franks a lot, David S. Miller davem@redhat.com