Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 13:10:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 13:10:46 -0500 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:19208 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 13:10:35 -0500 Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 19:10:22 +0100 From: Jens Axboe To: "Randy.Dunlap" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: bounce buffer usage Message-ID: <20020109191022.J19814@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20020108084200.B19380@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 09 2002, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > | The results look very promising, although I'm a bit surprised that 2.5 > | is actually that much quicker :-) > > I was too. When I have the bounce accounting straightened out, > I'll run each test multiple times. Good > | +++ mm/highmem.c > | @@ -409,7 +409,9 @@ > | vfrom = kmap(from->bv_page) + from->bv_offset; > | memcpy(vto, vfrom, to->bv_len); > | kunmap(from->bv_page); > | - } > | + bounced_write++; > | + } else > | + bounced_read++; > | } > | > | Of course those are all bounces, not just (or only) swap bounces. Also > | note that the above is not SMP safe. > > Is this the only place that kstat (kernel_stat) counters > are not SMP safe...? Haven't looked at the other stats, the i/o stats are protected by the queue_lock though. -- 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/