From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751310AbWDNRWK (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:22:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751311AbWDNRWK (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:22:10 -0400 Received: from ns1.siteground.net ([207.218.208.2]:63881 "EHLO serv01.siteground.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751310AbWDNRWI (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:22:08 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:23:01 -0700 From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai To: Laurent Vivier Cc: Mingming Cao , Andrew Morton , Takashi Sato , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ext2-devel , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Ext2-devel] Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2]Extend ext3 filesystem limit from 8TB to 16TB Message-ID: <20060414172301.GB3740@localhost.localdomain> References: <20060327225847.GC3756@localhost.localdomain> <1143530126.11560.6.camel@openx2.frec.bull.fr> <1143568905.3935.13.camel@dyn9047017067.beaverton.ibm.com> <1143623605.5046.11.camel@openx2.frec.bull.fr> <1143682730.4045.145.camel@dyn9047017067.beaverton.ibm.com> <20060329175446.67149f32.akpm@osdl.org> <1144660270.5816.3.camel@openx2.frec.bull.fr> <1144688279.3964.7.camel@dyn9047017067.beaverton.ibm.com> <1144696012.3964.76.camel@dyn9047017067.beaverton.ibm.com> <1144739259.9786.5.camel@openx2.frec.bull.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1144739259.9786.5.camel@openx2.frec.bull.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - serv01.siteground.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - scalex86.org X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Laurent, On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 09:07:39AM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote: > ... > I made some tests with iozone on 2 CPU hyperthreaded computer (= 4 CPUs, > Bull Express 5800 120 Lh), and it seems atomic_t is faster than > "percpu_counter". I'll try to make some tests on IBM x440 (8 CPUs, 16 if > hyperthreaded) with iozone and sysbench. > Moreover, I think percpu_counter uses a lot of memory... Was this just one iozone thread doing io? What was the performance difference? Please let me know what kind of test you are doing, and I can run the same on an IBM x460 with 16 cores here. Thanks, Kiran