Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262206AbVC2IdW (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Mar 2005 03:33:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262188AbVC2IbE (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Mar 2005 03:31:04 -0500 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:53223 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262183AbVC2INL (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Mar 2005 03:13:11 -0500 Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:13:06 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: "Chen, Kenneth W" Cc: "'Dave Jones'" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] optimization: defer bio_vec deallocation Message-ID: <20050329081305.GG16636@suse.de> References: <20050329025932.GC435@redhat.com> <200503290307.j2T37Yg25879@unix-os.sc.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200503290307.j2T37Yg25879@unix-os.sc.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1733 Lines: 39 On Mon, Mar 28 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:38:23PM -0800, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > > We have measured that the following patch give measurable performance gain > > for industry standard db benchmark. Comments? > > Dave Jones wrote on Monday, March 28, 2005 7:00 PM > > If you can't publish results from that certain benchmark due its stupid > > restrictions, could you also try running an alternative benchmark that > > you can show results from ? > > > > These nebulous claims of 'measurable gains' could mean anything. > > I'm assuming you see a substantial increase in throughput, but > > how much is it worth in exchange for complicating the code? > > Are you asking for micro-benchmark result? I had a tough time last time > around when I presented micro-benchmark result on LKML. I got kicked in > the butt for lack of evidence with performance data running real bench on > real hardware. > > I guess either way, I'm bruised one way or the other. Just _some_ results would be nice, Dave is right in that 'measurable gains' doesn't really say anything at all. Personally I would like to see a profile diff, for instance. And at least something like 'we get 1% gain bla bla'. Now, about the patch. I cannot convince myself that it is not deadlock prone, if someone waits for a bvec to be freed. Will slab reclaim always prune the bio slab and push the bvecs back into the mempool, or can there be cases where this doesn't happen? -- Jens Axboe - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/