Hi, On Friday, September 16, 2011 01:06:46 AM Andi Kleen wrote: > v3: No changes, except rebase. All reviews passed. Just reposting > for merging. Is anything/anyone still objecting to this patchset? I just retested it ontop of v3.1-rc8 minus the btrfs parts (which don't apply cleanly anymore because a modified version of 1/7 was merged) and it works fine for some hours of fs heavy db using benchmarking/development. Following is a seemingly trivial forward-port of 7/7. But since I have about no clue in fs development and even less about brfts - which I never used - take it with a grain of salt. It seems a bit ugly to have the mutex_unlock at three places btw. A 2nd patch fixes that, no idea whether its worth the churn. Both are compile tested only. Even at this (2 x E5520 (4 cores)) machine there seems to be a benefit of about 1.5%. Not enough cores to get into the actually problematic performance areas as presented by Robert though. The variance between runs is a bit too high to call it reliable though. Thanks, Andres PS: I have no clue what to do with the s-o-b and changelog when forward porting a patch... So I just copied the original message - which seems wrong. -- 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
