From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 00:59:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 00:59:42 -0400 Received: from e21.nc.us.ibm.com ([32.97.136.227]:11723 "EHLO e21.nc.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 00:59:35 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 10:34:24 +0530 From: Dipankar Sarma To: davem@redhat.com Cc: marcelo@connectiva.com.br, riel@connectiva.com.br, Andrea Arcangeli , torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hawkes@engr.sgi.com Subject: Re: Locking comment on shrink_caches() Message-ID: <20010926103424.A8893@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: dipankar@in.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article <20010925.132816.52117370.davem@redhat.com> David S. Miller wrote: > From: Rik van Riel > Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 17:24:21 -0300 (BRST) > > Or were you measuring loads which are mostly read-only ? > When Kanoj Sarcar was back at SGI testing 32 processor Origin > MIPS systems, pagecache_lock was at the top. John Hawkes from SGI had published some AIM7 numbers that showed pagecache_lock to be a bottleneck above 4 processors. At 32 processors, half the CPU cycles were spent on waiting for pagecache_lock. The thread is at - http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=lse-tech&m=98459051027582&w=2 Thanks Dipankar -- Dipankar Sarma Project: http://lse.sourceforge.net Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Lab, Bangalore, India.