From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265253AbUENL0y (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 May 2004 07:26:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264444AbUENL0y (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 May 2004 07:26:54 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:60630 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265253AbUENLZs (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 May 2004 07:25:48 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 13:24:08 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Paul Jackson Cc: raghav@in.ibm.com, akpm@osdl.org, maneesh@in.ibm.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, torvalds@osdl.org, manfred@colorfullife.com, davej@redhat.com, wli@holomorphy.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: dentry bloat. Message-ID: <20040514112408.GH17326@suse.de> References: <20040508120148.1be96d66.akpm@osdl.org> <20040508201259.GA6383@in.ibm.com> <20041006125824.GE2004@in.ibm.com> <20040511132205.4b55292a.akpm@osdl.org> <20040514103322.GA6474@in.ibm.com> <20040514035039.347871e8.pj@sgi.com> <20040514110427.GG17326@suse.de> <20040514041433.1b38b120.pj@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040514041433.1b38b120.pj@sgi.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 14 2004, Paul Jackson wrote: > > so I guess you do. > > Sorry - I'm being thick. > > Is the new hashing good or bad? > > (Usually, performance is thought of as something 'good', so when you say > it is 'brought down', that sounds 'bad', but since it's ms/iteration, > I'm guessing that you mean to say that the ms/iteration is lower, which > would I guess improves performance, so I'm guessing that bringing > performance down is 'good' in this case, which is not idiomatic to the > particular version of English I happen to speak ... So please favor > this poor old brain of mine and state outright whether the new hash is > good or bad. Does the new hash makes performance better or worse?) :-) I can only say the way I read the numbers, the new hashing scores higher ms/iteration which is a bad thing. So when it is stated that 'performance is brought down' I completely agree that it describes the situation, performance is worse than before. First table shows 2.6.6 (with old hash) doing better than 2.6.6-BK with new hash. It then shows 2.6.6-Bk with old hash doing worse than 2.6.6 still, so it's not just the hash that has slowed things down. 2.6.6-new_hash does worse than 2.6.6-stock. -- Jens Axboe