On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:42:36PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Le mercredi 13 octobre 2010 à 18:20 +1100, Nick Piggin a écrit : > > > I don't think the patchset has suddenly become vastly more urgent > > in the past month, so I think my approach of having it get a lot > > of testing and go in Al's vfs tree for a while is best. > > > > Hi Nick > > Not vastly urgent, but highly wanted on many workloads, even ones not > really related to 'fs'... > > In current tree, a "close(socket())" needs 31 us on a 2x4x2 machine, > instead of 1.45 us if single thread. > > But yes, I agree a lot of testing is needed :) Hi Eric, Yes of course I know you know about this :) And google knows about it too -- they of course posted the batched iput/dput patches a couple of years back when they noticed it on their socket workloads. I've extensively tested the socket paths during development of the patches, and on a POWER7 system with many hundreds of threads, it scales completely linearly! I acknowledge that the vfs scale work is actually quite urgent, and probably at least a year overdue (2.6.32 would have been nice target for distros). I just mean that it hasn't suddenly gone from less to much more important to push this in now before I review it or before it has had a chance in vfs tree. Thanks, Nick -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
