Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755224AbZKCWSx (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:18:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755116AbZKCWSx (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:18:53 -0500 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:59301 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754930AbZKCWSw (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:18:52 -0500 To: Benjamin LaHaise Cc: Greg KH , Eric Dumazet , Octavian Purdila , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Cosmin Ratiu , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sysfs directory scaling: rbtree for dirent name lookups References: <20091101163130.GA7911@kvack.org> <20091103035058.GA19515@kroah.com> <20091103200155.GQ8227@kvack.org> <20091103215251.GS8227@kvack.org> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:18:53 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20091103215251.GS8227@kvack.org> (Benjamin LaHaise's message of "Tue\, 3 Nov 2009 16\:52\:51 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-XM-SPF: eid=;;;mid=;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=76.21.114.89;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 76.21.114.89 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on in01.mta.xmission.com); Exit with error (see exim mainlog) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1478 Lines: 30 Benjamin LaHaise writes: > On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 01:32:33PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Are your numbers from your application and are they real world? >> In which case they are interesting, but it would be good if >> we could also have microbenchmark numbers that just measure >> the sysfs costs. If nothing else I am seeing a big startup >> overhead that isn't being subtracted out that makes it hard >> to see the real costs here. > > They're application based, so there's a bunch of other overhead included > that won't show up on a microbenchmark. Each interface requires a round > trip between 2 L2TP daemons, so there are lots of syscalls and other cache > polluting effects that won't show up on a microbenchmark. One of the L2TP > daemons is configured not to instantiate any kernel state -- running in > this mode, it has very little overhead. > > The other thing to note is that the costs posted are how long it takes to > add an additional 5,000 interfaces in the given range, not the total time > to add say 35,000 interfaces (I didn't feel like waiting that long). Ok. That makes a lot more sense. The times you posted ideally would be flat but they go up from 12s to 60s. Eric -- 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/