From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH] reiserfs: kill-the-BKL Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:07:35 +0200 Message-ID: <20090410130735.GC31307@elte.hu> References: <1239070789-13354-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <87tz4x97uq.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20090409184022.GA2665@elte.hu> <20090409193635.GO14687@one.firstfloor.org> <20090409211733.GA23233@elte.hu> <20090410003947.GA21681@brong.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090410003947.GA21681@brong.net> Sender: reiserfs-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Bron Gondwana Cc: Andi Kleen , Linus Torvalds , Frederic Weisbecker , LKML , Jeff Mahoney , Peter Zijlstra , ReiserFS Development List , Andrew Morton , Alexander Viro * Bron Gondwana wrote: > > For example, if you have /home and / on separate reiser3 > > filesystems, you could see as much as a 200% jump in performance > > straight away on certain workloads, on a dual-core box. > > > > That big BKL overhead is a real reiser3 scalability problem - > > especially on reiser3 using servers which are likely to have > > several filesystems on the same box. > > Yes - I'm certainly interested in that. > > That said, we have a box with 83 reiserfs partitions on it, and > which is constrained by IO (main servers really don't need much > CPU). Performance is pretty good even now. > > So - I'm interested in this patch series, but not at the expense > of making reiserfs any less stable. Our customers, funnily > enough, like it when our service is stable! Definitely so :-) Ingo