Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262530AbVCaHfN (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Mar 2005 02:35:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262540AbVCaHfL (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Mar 2005 02:35:11 -0500 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:30697 "EHLO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262530AbVCaHad (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Mar 2005 02:30:33 -0500 Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:30:17 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andrew Morton Cc: trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, rlrevell@joe-job.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: NFS client latencies Message-ID: <20050331073017.GA16577@elte.hu> References: <1112192778.17365.2.camel@mindpipe> <1112194256.10634.35.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20050330115640.0bc38d01.akpm@osdl.org> <1112217299.10771.3.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <1112236017.26732.4.camel@mindpipe> <20050330183957.2468dc21.akpm@osdl.org> <1112237239.26732.8.camel@mindpipe> <1112240918.10975.4.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20050331065942.GA14952@elte.hu> <20050330231801.129b0715.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050330231801.129b0715.akpm@osdl.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1554 Lines: 40 * Andrew Morton wrote: > Well. The radix-tree approach's best-case is probably quite a lot > worse than the list-based approach's best-case. It hits a lot more > cachelines and involves a lot more code. The list-based approach's best-case are large continuous append writes. No sorting overhead, and light data structures. i'd say this workload should be not that bad under the radix tree either - the gang lookup stuffs a nice vector of 16 pages into an array. we definitely can say nothing based on the observation that a _single_ page took 1.9 msecs in Lee's previous measurement, while 7700 pages now take 6 msecs to process. > But of course the radix-tree's worst-case will be far better than > list's. the generic VM/pagecache has proven that the radix tree wins hands down for alot more workloads than the worst-case. > And presumably that list-based code rarely hits the worst-case, else > it would have been changed by now. that was my other point in a previous mail: most write benchmarks do continuous append writes, and CPU overhead easily gets lost in network latency. Also, considering that a good portion of the NFS client's code is still running under the BKL one would assume if the BKL hurts performance it would have been changed by now? ;-) Ingo - 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/