From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96A527F50 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:44:03 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37C32AC005 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:44:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.143]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 4r1gUPKq1kou00Fn for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:44:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:43:57 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] libxfs: remove a couple of locks Message-ID: <20140225234357.GJ13647@dastard> References: <1393223369-4696-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1393223369-4696-9-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20140225200558.GC22351@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140225200558.GC22351@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:05:58PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > So what's protecting the cache hits statistics now? Nothing. And I don't care because the statistic is meaningless from the point of view of tuning xfs_repair performance. > Longer term it might make sense to just port the XFS buffercache from > the kernel to libxfs.. *nod* We badly need to separate the buffer cache into per-AG caches because most of the per-thread operations are isolated to a single AG and so a global hash simply doesn't scale from a lock contention or a table sizing point of view.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs