From: "Martin J. Bligh" <Martin.Bligh@us.ibm.com>
To: Hanna Linder <hannal@us.ibm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, viro@math.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] lockmeter results comparing 2.4.17, 2.5.3, and 2.5.5
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:34:36 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <67850000.1014834875@flay> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <10460000.1014833979@w-hlinder.des>
In-Reply-To: <10460000.1014833979@w-hlinder.des>
> 2.5.5:
>
> 8.6% 1.6us( 100ms) 30us( 86ms)( 9.4%) 783373441 91.4% 8.6% 0.00% *TOTAL*
Whilst it's great to see BKL contention going down, this:
0.16% 0.25% 0.7us( 100ms) 252us( 86ms)(0.02%) 6077746 99.8% 0.25% 0% inode_lock
0.03% 0.11% 0.6us( 55us) 2.1us( 9.9us)(0.00%) 1322338 99.9% 0.11% 0% __mark_inode_dirty+0x48
0.00% 0% 0.7us( 5.9us) 0us 391 100% 0% 0% get_new_inode+0x28
0.00% 0.22% 2.5us( 50us) 495us( 28ms)(0.00%) 50397 99.8% 0.22% 0% iget4+0x3c
0.03% 0.28% 0.6us( 26us) 30us( 58ms)(0.00%) 1322080 99.7% 0.28% 0% insert_inode_hash+0x44
0.04% 0.29% 0.5us( 39us) 332us( 86ms)(0.01%) 2059365 99.7% 0.29% 0% iput+0x68
0.03% 0.30% 0.7us( 57us) 422us( 77ms)(0.01%) 1323036 99.7% 0.30% 0% new_inode+0x1c
0.03% 8.3% 63ms( 100ms) 3.8us( 3.8us)(0.00%) 12 91.7% 8.3% 0% prune_icache+0x1c
0.00% 0% 1.0us( 5.2us) 0us 34 100% 0% 0% sync_unlocked_inodes+0x10
0.00% 0% 1.0us( 2.4us) 0us 93 100% 0% 0% sync_unlocked_inodes+0x110
looks a little distressing - the hold times on inode_lock by prune_icache
look bad in terms of latency (contention is still low, but people are still
waiting on it for a very long time). Is this a transient thing, or do people
think this is going to be a problem?
Martin.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-02-27 18:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-02-27 18:19 lockmeter results comparing 2.4.17, 2.5.3, and 2.5.5 Hanna Linder
2002-02-27 18:34 ` Martin J. Bligh [this message]
2002-02-27 19:27 ` [Lse-tech] " Linus Torvalds
2002-02-27 19:45 ` Andrew Morton
2002-02-27 19:57 ` Hanna Linder
2002-02-28 8:31 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2002-02-27 20:01 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-02-27 20:15 ` Andrew Morton
2002-02-27 21:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-02-27 21:48 ` Alexander Viro
2002-02-27 23:14 ` Hanna Linder
2002-02-27 23:32 ` Hanna Linder
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-02-27 21:30 Niels Christiansen
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=67850000.1014834875@flay \
--to=martin.bligh@us.ibm.com \
--cc=hannal@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=viro@math.psu.edu \
/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.