From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265254AbUENL1Y (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 May 2004 07:27:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264444AbUENL1X (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 May 2004 07:27:23 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.129]:17375 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265257AbUENL1U (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 May 2004 07:27:20 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 16:54:08 +0530 From: Dipankar Sarma To: Paul Jackson Cc: Jens Axboe , raghav@in.ibm.com, akpm@osdl.org, maneesh@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.GM4002@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: dipankar@in.ibm.com 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> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 04:14:33AM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote: > > so I guess you do. > > Sorry - I'm being thick. > > Is the new hashing good or bad? That I don't know from the contradicting descriptions, but... > (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 In this case, the performance is inversely proportional to the benchmark metric. Lower benchmark metric means better performance. Thanks Dipankar