From: "Martin J. Bligh" <Martin.Bligh@us.ibm.com>
To: Hanna Linder <hannal@us.ibm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, viro@math.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] lockmeter results comparing 2.4.17, 2.5.3, and 2.5.5
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:34:36 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <67850000.1014834875@flay> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <10460000.1014833979@w-hlinder.des>
In-Reply-To: <10460000.1014833979@w-hlinder.des>
> 2.5.5:
>
> 8.6% 1.6us( 100ms) 30us( 86ms)( 9.4%) 783373441 91.4% 8.6% 0.00% *TOTAL*
Whilst it's great to see BKL contention going down, this:
0.16% 0.25% 0.7us( 100ms) 252us( 86ms)(0.02%) 6077746 99.8% 0.25% 0% inode_lock
0.03% 0.11% 0.6us( 55us) 2.1us( 9.9us)(0.00%) 1322338 99.9% 0.11% 0% __mark_inode_dirty+0x48
0.00% 0% 0.7us( 5.9us) 0us 391 100% 0% 0% get_new_inode+0x28
0.00% 0.22% 2.5us( 50us) 495us( 28ms)(0.00%) 50397 99.8% 0.22% 0% iget4+0x3c
0.03% 0.28% 0.6us( 26us) 30us( 58ms)(0.00%) 1322080 99.7% 0.28% 0% insert_inode_hash+0x44
0.04% 0.29% 0.5us( 39us) 332us( 86ms)(0.01%) 2059365 99.7% 0.29% 0% iput+0x68
0.03% 0.30% 0.7us( 57us) 422us( 77ms)(0.01%) 1323036 99.7% 0.30% 0% new_inode+0x1c
0.03% 8.3% 63ms( 100ms) 3.8us( 3.8us)(0.00%) 12 91.7% 8.3% 0% prune_icache+0x1c
0.00% 0% 1.0us( 5.2us) 0us 34 100% 0% 0% sync_unlocked_inodes+0x10
0.00% 0% 1.0us( 2.4us) 0us 93 100% 0% 0% sync_unlocked_inodes+0x110
looks a little distressing - the hold times on inode_lock by prune_icache
look bad in terms of latency (contention is still low, but people are still
waiting on it for a very long time). Is this a transient thing, or do people
think this is going to be a problem?
Martin.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-02-27 18:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-02-27 18:19 lockmeter results comparing 2.4.17, 2.5.3, and 2.5.5 Hanna Linder
2002-02-27 18:34 ` Martin J. Bligh [this message]
2002-02-27 19:27 ` [Lse-tech] " Linus Torvalds
2002-02-27 19:45 ` Andrew Morton
2002-02-27 19:57 ` Hanna Linder
2002-02-28 8:31 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2002-02-27 20:01 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-02-27 20:15 ` Andrew Morton
2002-02-27 21:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-02-27 21:48 ` Alexander Viro
2002-02-27 23:14 ` Hanna Linder
2002-02-27 23:32 ` Hanna Linder
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-02-27 21:30 Niels Christiansen
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=67850000.1014834875@flay \
--to=martin.bligh@us.ibm.com \
--cc=hannal@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=viro@math.psu.edu \
/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