On 2010-12-07, at 14:33, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 15:22:55 -0600 > Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Retesting at a bunch of different number-of-files in bonnie >> (with a small sample size so probably a little noise) >> >> |files per sec| >> files stock patched delta >> 10,000 12300 14700 +19% >> 20,000 6300 7600 +20% >> 30,000 4200 5000 +20% >> 40,000 3150 3700 +17% >> 50,000 2500 3000 +20% >> >> (again all on a 512MB ramdisk) >> >> *shrug* I'll believe my lyin' eyes, I guess. :) > > I bet other tweaks in there would yield similar goodliness. I think an important factor here is that this is being tested on a ramdisk, and is likely CPU bound, so any CPU reduction will directly be measured as a performance improvement. Probably oprofile is in order to see where other major CPU users are. In the past, ext3_mark_inode_dirty() was a major offender, and I recall that we discussed on the ext4 concall a mechanism to only copy the inode once per transaction so that overhead could be removed. Cheers, Andreas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
