From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Remove constructor from buffer_head
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 21:37:17 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070503213717.37be3e56.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705032033560.16788@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
On Thu, 3 May 2007 20:34:48 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 3 May 2007 20:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Performance tests show a slight improvements in netperf (not a
> > > strong case for a performance improvement but removing the
> > > constructor has definitely no negative impact so why keep
> > > this around?).
> > >
> > > TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to localhost (127.0.0.1) port 0 AF_INET
> > > Recv Send Send
> > > Socket Socket Message Elapsed
> > > Size Size Size Time Throughput
> > > bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec
> > >
> > > Before:
> > > 87380 16384 16384 10.01 6026.04
> > > 87380 16384 16384 10.01 5992.17
> > > 87380 16384 16384 10.01 6071.23
> > >
> > > After:
> > > 87380 16384 16384 10.01 6090.20
> > > 87380 16384 16384 10.01 6078.3
> > > 87380 16384 16384 10.00 6013.52
> >
> > How could a filesystem change affect networking performance?
> >
> > The change looks nice, but I'd microbenchmark it with a write-to-ext2-on-ramdisk
> > or something like that.
>
> Hmmmm.. I was told in another thread that this is the most frequently used
> slab for this benchmark
That would be hair-raising ;) I suspect confusion with sk_buff.
buffer_heads do get used quite a bit though. A good microbenchmark would
be to sit in a tight loop extending and truncating an ext2 file
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-04 4:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-04 3:08 Remove constructor from buffer_head Christoph Lameter
2007-05-04 3:21 ` Andrew Morton
2007-05-04 3:34 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-05-04 4:37 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2007-05-04 4:34 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-05-04 6:35 ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-05-04 16:05 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-05-04 20:42 ` Andrew Morton
2007-05-04 21:33 ` Andrew Morton
2007-05-04 23:22 ` Andi Kleen
2007-05-04 23:45 ` Andrew Morton
2007-05-05 9:31 ` Andi Kleen
2007-05-13 20:38 ` oprofile broken in 2.6.21 SMP (was Re: Remove constructor from buffer_head) Benjamin LaHaise
2007-05-15 3:12 ` Andrew Morton
2007-05-04 21:42 ` Remove constructor from buffer_head Christoph Lameter
2007-05-04 21:47 ` Andrew Morton
2007-05-04 21:52 ` Chuck Ebbert
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070503213717.37be3e56.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=clameter@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.