From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Latest vfs scalability patch
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:10:38 +0200
Message-ID: <1254827438.21044.251.camel@laptop>
References: <20091006064919.GB30316@wotan.suse.de>
	 <20091006101414.GM5216@kernel.dk>  <20091006102604.GN5216@kernel.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@scalex86.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:37859 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1756823AbZJFLLT (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 6 Oct 2009 07:11:19 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20091006102604.GN5216@kernel.dk>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 12:26 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:

> I did a quick perf analysis on that, but only on 8 clients (64 clients
> basically causes perf to shit itself, it's just not functional).

Even when used with -a so that you profile each cpu? I can imagine the
cacheline contention from the inherited counters to render a 64 thread
machine less than usable?