Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030499AbWHRQhm (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:37:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030497AbWHRQhm (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:37:42 -0400 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.176]:32496 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030499AbWHRQhm (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:37:42 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=HjZMOGxi7m1sUbq11XlglxlaynFCWm0FpVcsioNXj+/D9r32JzAnreyuQkDO6k8kL/73tEsV3tJ8A2E5XsipqGFVbG+vRHS1vntMDuE7JAelluFgjUyCMXT+B30Mmq4sfJX5LIGxvjok7wGhbt8tSzcxmDZxMhzPCKWm34v9Yug= Message-ID: <4745278c0608180937k1a2af05fp7142e4cc062bf200@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:37:40 -0400 From: "Vishal Patil" To: "Andi Kleen" Subject: Re: Page cache using B-trees benchmark results Cc: "Andrea Arcangeli" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <4745278c0608171843j5b3d28bbx16ddf472e1bdb329@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1873 Lines: 50 Hey Andi....This is useful information....I will look into it and let you know.... Many thanks. - Vishal On 18 Aug 2006 18:25:54 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > "Vishal Patil" writes: > > > I am attaching the benchmark results for Page Cache Implementation > > using B-trees. I basically ran the tio (threaded i/o) benchmark > > against my kernel (with the B-tree implementation) and the Linux > > I suppose you'll need some more varied benchmarks to get > more solid data. > > > kernel shipped with FC5. Radix tree implementation is definately > > better however the B-tree implementation did not suck that bad :) > > Have you considered trying it again instead of radix tree with > another data structure? There are still plenty of other big > hash tables in the kernel that might benefit from trying > a different approach: > > > dmesg | grep -i hash > PID hash table entries: 4096 (order: 12, 131072 bytes) > Dentry cache hash table entries: 262144 (order: 9, 2097152 bytes) > Inode-cache hash table entries: 131072 (order: 8, 1048576 bytes) > Mount-cache hash table entries: 256 > Dquot-cache hash table entries: 512 (order 0, 4096 bytes) > IP route cache hash table entries: 65536 (order: 7, 524288 bytes) > TCP established hash table entries: 262144 (order: 9, 2097152 bytes) > TCP bind hash table entries: 65536 (order: 7, 524288 bytes) > TCP: Hash tables configured (established 262144 bind 65536) > > e.g. the dentry/inode hashes are an obvious attack point. > > Of course you'll need benchmarks that actually stress them. > > -Andi > -- Motivation will almost always beat mere talent. - 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/