From: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] files: scalable fd management (V4)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 01:42:13 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050614201213.GL4557@in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050614130338.70e99074.akpm@osdl.org>
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 01:03:38PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > tiobench on a 4-way ppc64 system :
> > (lockfree)
> > Test 2.6.10-vanilla Stdev 2.6.10-fd Stdev
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > Seqread 1428 32.47 1475.0 29.11
> > Randread 1469.2 17.27 1599.6 35.95
> > Seqwrite 262.06 9.31 246.8 30.94
> > Randwrite 548.38 12.49 521.4 61.98
>
> We don't seem to have gained anything?
Look at the read numbers - lockfree is statistically better. The
write numbers varied just too much to mean anything. Besides, this
is on ppc64, with LL/SC type of lock. Here are the x86 numbers -
tiobench on a 4(8)-way (HT) P4 system on ramdisk :
(lockfree)
Test 2.6.10-vanilla Stdev 2.6.10-fd Stdev
-------------------------------------------------------------
Seqread 1400.8 11.52 1465.4 34.27
Randread 1594 8.86 2397.2 29.21
Seqwrite 242.72 3.47 238.46 6.53
Randwrite 445.74 9.15 446.4 9.75
The performance improvement is very significant.
We are getting killed by the cacheline bouncing of the files_struct
lock here. Writes on ramdisk (ext2) seems to vary just too
much to get any meaningful number.
Also, With Tridge's thread_perf test on a 4(8)-way (HT) P4 xeon system :
2.6.12-rc5-vanilla :
Running test 'readwrite' with 8 tasks
Threads 0.34 +/- 0.01 seconds
Processes 0.16 +/- 0.00 seconds
2.6.12-rc5-fd :
Running test 'readwrite' with 8 tasks
Threads 0.17 +/- 0.02 seconds
Processes 0.17 +/- 0.02 seconds
Thanks
Dipankar
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-06-14 20:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-06-14 14:26 [PATCH 0/6] files: scalable fd management (V4) Dipankar Sarma
2005-06-14 14:27 ` [PATCH 0/6] files: fix rcu initializers Dipankar Sarma
2005-06-14 14:28 ` [PATCH 0/6] files: rcuref APIs Dipankar Sarma
2005-06-14 14:29 ` [PATCH 3/6] files: break up files struct Dipankar Sarma
2005-06-14 14:30 ` [PATCH 4/6] files: files struct with RCU Dipankar Sarma
2005-06-14 14:31 ` [PATCH 5/6] files: lock-free fd look-up Dipankar Sarma
2005-06-14 14:32 ` [PATCH 6/6] files: files locking doc Dipankar Sarma
2005-06-14 14:33 ` [PATCH 0/6] files: rcuref APIs Dipankar Sarma
2005-06-14 14:33 ` [PATCH 0/6] files: fix rcu initializers Dipankar Sarma
2005-06-14 20:03 ` [PATCH 0/6] files: scalable fd management (V4) Andrew Morton
2005-06-14 20:12 ` Dipankar Sarma [this message]
2005-06-15 12:18 ` Dipankar Sarma
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=20050614201213.GL4557@in.ibm.com \
--to=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk \
/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