public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Olaf Dietsche <olaf+list.linux-kernel@olafdietsche.de>
To: "Jose R. Santos" <jrsantos@austin.ibm.com>
Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, anton@samba.org,
	dheger@us.ibm.com, slpratt@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dentry and inode cache hash algorithm performance changes.
Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 14:08:26 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8765bg4af9.fsf@goat.bogus.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040430195504.GE14271@rx8.ibm.com> (Jose R. Santos's message of "Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:55:04 -0500")

"Jose R. Santos" <jrsantos@austin.ibm.com> writes:

> Anton was nice enough to provide some graphs that show the distribution 
> before and after the patch at http://samba.org/~anton/linux/sfs/1/

Judging from the graphs (!), I don't see a real difference for
dcache. There's just one outlier (depth 11) for the old hash function,
which seems to be translated to multiple depth 9 entries. The
histograms seem to confirm, that there's at most a minimal difference,
if they'd be equally scaled.

Maybe this is due to qstr hashes, which were used by both approaches
as input?

The inode hash seems to be distributed more evenly with the new hash
function. Although the inode histogram suggests, that most buckets are
in the 0-2 depth range, with the old hash function leading slightly in
the zero depth range.

Regards, Olaf.

  reply	other threads:[~2004-05-01 12:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-04-30 19:55 [PATCH] dentry and inode cache hash algorithm performance changes Jose R. Santos
2004-05-01 12:08 ` Olaf Dietsche [this message]
2004-05-01 15:08   ` Jose R. Santos
2004-05-20 13:34     ` Raghavan
     [not found] <20040430191539.GC14271@rx8.ibm.com>
     [not found] ` <20040430131832.45be6956.akpm@osdl.org>
2004-04-30 20:57   ` Jose R. Santos
2004-04-30 21:33     ` Jose R. Santos
2004-04-30 22:02       ` Andrew Morton
2004-04-30 23:42         ` Jose R. Santos
2004-05-04 13:12         ` Jose R. Santos
2004-05-04 18:55           ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-07 13:04             ` Jose R. Santos
2004-05-08  1:03               ` Dave Hansen

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=8765bg4af9.fsf@goat.bogus.local \
    --to=olaf+list.linux-kernel@olafdietsche.de \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=anton@samba.org \
    --cc=dheger@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=jrsantos@austin.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=slpratt@us.ibm.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