From: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>,
mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives?
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 15:56:03 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20011110155603.B767@krispykreme> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <p731yj8kgvw.fsf@amdsim2.suse.de> <20011109110532.B6822@krispykreme> <20011109064540.A13498@wotan.suse.de> <20011108.220444.95062095.davem@redhat.com> <20011109073946.A19373@wotan.suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <20011109073946.A19373@wotan.suse.de>
Hi,
> I'm assuming that walking on average 5-10 pages on a lookup is not too big a
> deal, especially when you use prefetch for the list walk. It is a tradeoff
> between a big hash table thrashing your cache and a smaller hash table that
> can be cached but has on average >1 entries/buckets. At some point the the
> smaller hash table wins, assuming the hash function is evenly distributed.
>
> It would only get bad if the average chain length would become much bigger.
>
> Before jumping to real conclusions it would be interesting to gather
> some statistics on Anton's machine, but I suspect he just has an very
> unevenly populated table.
You can find the raw data here:
http://samba.org/~anton/linux/pagecache/pagecache_data_gfp.gz
http://samba.org/~anton/linux/pagecache/pagecache_data_vmalloc.gz
You can see the average depth of the get_free_page hash is way too deep.
I agree there are a lot of pagecache pages (17GB in the gfp test and 21GB
in the vmalloc test), but we have to make use of the 32GB of RAM :)
I did some experimentation with prefetch and I dont think it will gain
you anything here. We need to issue the prefetch many cycles before
using the data which we cannot do when walking the chain.
Anton
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-11-10 4:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111081802380.15975-100000@localhost.localdomain.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111081836080.15975-100000@localhost.localdomain.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
2001-11-08 23:00 ` speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives? Andi Kleen
2001-11-09 0:05 ` Anton Blanchard
2001-11-09 5:45 ` Andi Kleen
2001-11-09 6:04 ` David S. Miller
2001-11-09 6:39 ` Andi Kleen
2001-11-09 6:54 ` Andrew Morton
2001-11-09 7:17 ` David S. Miller
2001-11-09 7:16 ` Andrew Morton
2001-11-09 7:24 ` David S. Miller
2001-11-09 8:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-11-09 7:35 ` Andrew Morton
2001-11-09 7:44 ` David S. Miller
2001-11-09 7:14 ` David S. Miller
2001-11-09 7:16 ` David S. Miller
2001-11-09 12:59 ` Alan Cox
2001-11-09 12:54 ` David S. Miller
2001-11-09 13:15 ` Philip Dodd
2001-11-09 13:26 ` David S. Miller
2001-11-09 20:45 ` Mike Fedyk
2001-11-09 13:17 ` Andi Kleen
2001-11-09 13:25 ` David S. Miller
2001-11-09 13:39 ` Andi Kleen
2001-11-09 13:41 ` David S. Miller
2001-11-10 5:20 ` Anton Blanchard
2001-11-10 4:56 ` Anton Blanchard [this message]
2001-11-10 5:09 ` Andi Kleen
2001-11-10 13:29 ` David S. Miller
2001-11-10 13:44 ` David S. Miller
2001-11-10 13:52 ` David S. Miller
2001-11-10 14:29 ` Numbers: ext2/ext3/reiser Performance (ext3 is slow) Oktay Akbal
2001-11-10 14:47 ` arjan
2001-11-10 17:41 ` Oktay Akbal
2001-11-10 17:56 ` Arjan van de Ven
2001-11-15 17:24 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2001-11-12 16:59 ` [patch] arbitrary size memory allocator, memarea-2.4.15-D6 Ingo Molnar
2001-11-12 18:19 ` Jeff Garzik
2001-11-12 23:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-11-13 15:59 ` Riley Williams
2001-11-14 20:49 ` Tom Gall
2001-11-15 1:11 ` Anton Blanchard
2001-11-17 18:00 ` Eric W. Biederman
2001-11-09 3:12 ` speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives? Rusty Russell
2001-11-09 5:59 ` Andi Kleen
2001-11-09 11:16 ` Helge Hafting
2001-11-12 9:59 ` Rusty Russell
2001-11-12 23:23 ` David S. Miller
2001-11-12 23:14 ` Rusty Russell
2001-11-13 1:30 ` Mike Fedyk
2001-11-13 1:15 ` David Lang
2001-11-08 16:01 Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2001-11-08 17:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-11-08 17:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-11-08 23:59 ` Anton Blanchard
2001-11-09 5:11 ` Keith Owens
2001-11-10 3:35 ` Anton Blanchard
2001-11-10 7:26 ` Keith Owens
2001-11-08 17:53 ` Robert Love
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=20011110155603.B767@krispykreme \
--to=anton@samba.org \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox