Re: tbench regression in 2.6.25-rc1
- From: Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:33:53 -0500
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:12:38 +0800, "Zhang, Yanmin" said:
I also think __refcnt is the key. I did a new testing by adding 2 unsigned long
pading before lastuse, so the 3 members are moved to next cache line. The performance is
recovered.
How about below patch? Almost all performance is recovered with the new patch.
Signed-off-by: Zhang Yanmin <yanmin.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
Could you add a comment someplace that says "refcnt wants to be on a different
cache line from input/output/ops or performance tanks badly", to warn some
future kernel hacker who starts adding new fields to the structure?
Attachment:
pgplJaLRfcB6j.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: tbench regression in 2.6.25-rc1
- From: Zhang, Yanmin
- Re: tbench regression in 2.6.25-rc1
- References:
- Re: tbench regression in 2.6.25-rc1
- From: Eric Dumazet
- Re: tbench regression in 2.6.25-rc1
- From: Zhang, Yanmin
- Re: tbench regression in 2.6.25-rc1
- From: Eric Dumazet
- Re: tbench regression in 2.6.25-rc1
- From: David Miller
- Re: tbench regression in 2.6.25-rc1
- From: Zhang, Yanmin
- Re: tbench regression in 2.6.25-rc1
- Prev by Date: Re: Unable to continue testing of 2.6.25
- Next by Date: Re: [GIT PULL - resend] V4L/DVB fixes - first request on Feb, 12
- Previous by thread: Re: tbench regression in 2.6.25-rc1
- Next by thread: Re: tbench regression in 2.6.25-rc1
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|