On Monday 17 September 2007 14:07, David Chinner wrote:I didn't have the chance to test against a 16K directory block size to find the "optimal" performance, but it is something I will do (I'm sure it will be still a _lot_ faster than 172 seconds :)). Yeah, it is a slight change... the lazy vunmap only has to take it for read. In practice, I'm not sure that it helps a great deal because everything else still takes the lock for write. But that explains why it's popped up in the profile. Still away from home (for the next 2 weeks), so I'll be going a bit slow :P I'm thinking about various scalable locking schemes and I'll definitely ping you when I've made a bit of progress. Thanks, Nick -
| Jan Engelhardt | intel iommu (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) |
| Justin C. Sherrill | Re: dragonflybsd.org website link? |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 002/196] Chinese: rephrase English introduction in HOWTO |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Patrick McHardy | [NET_SCHED 01/15]: sch_atm: fix format string warning |
