From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: Daniel Phillips <phillips@google.com>,
Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@oracle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-devel] Ocfs2 performance bugs of doom
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 05:19:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200603090519.37801.ak@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <440FDC8E.9060907@yahoo.com.au>
On Thursday 09 March 2006 08:43, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Just interested: do the locks have any sort of locality of lookup?
> If so, then have you tried moving hot (ie. the one you've just found,
> or newly inserted) hash entries to the head of the hash list?
>
> In applications with really good locality you can sometimes get away
> with small hash tables (10s even 100s of collisions on average) without
> taking too big a hit this way, because your entries basically get sorted
> LRU for you.
LRU hashes have really bad cache behaviour though if that is not the case
because you possibily need to bounce around the hash heads as DIRTY
cache lines instead of keeping them in SHARED state.
My feeling would be that scalability is more important for this, which would
discourage this.
-Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-03-09 11:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-03-03 22:27 Ocfs2 performance bugs of doom Daniel Phillips
2006-03-04 0:53 ` Mark Fasheh
2006-03-04 3:42 ` Daniel Phillips
2006-03-04 7:36 ` Andrew Morton
2006-03-05 19:22 ` Mark Fasheh
2006-03-06 1:28 ` Daniel Phillips
2006-03-06 2:58 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Mark Fasheh
2006-03-06 4:59 ` Daniel Phillips
2006-03-06 19:51 ` Mark Fasheh
2006-03-07 3:34 ` Andi Kleen
2006-03-07 4:58 ` Mark Fasheh
2006-03-07 6:56 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Daniel Phillips
2006-03-09 6:26 ` Daniel Phillips
2006-03-09 7:26 ` Nick Piggin
2006-03-09 7:43 ` Nick Piggin
2006-03-09 4:19 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2006-03-09 12:30 ` Nick Piggin
2006-03-10 5:14 ` Nick Piggin
2006-03-10 0:21 ` [Ocfs2-devel] Ocfs2 performance Mark Fasheh
2006-03-10 1:14 ` Bernd Eckenfels
2006-03-10 7:10 ` Joel Becker
2006-03-11 1:09 ` Mark Fasheh
2006-03-11 1:57 ` Bernd Eckenfels
2006-03-10 11:17 ` Daniel Phillips
2006-03-10 18:23 ` Zach Brown
2006-03-10 21:13 ` Daniel Phillips
2006-03-10 21:13 ` Daniel Phillips
2006-03-10 2:33 ` [Ocfs2-devel] Ocfs2 performance bugs of doom J. Bruce Fields
2006-03-10 10:27 ` Daniel Phillips
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=200603090519.37801.ak@suse.de \
--to=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.fasheh@oracle.com \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com \
--cc=phillips@google.com \
/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