[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1281992801.1926.2019.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 23:06:41 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Salman Qazi <sqazi@...gle.com>
Cc: paulmck@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, adurbin@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fixed a mismatch between the users of radix_tree and
the implementation.
(html damaged email alert)
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 13:59 -0700, Salman Qazi wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 11:30 -0700, Salman Qazi wrote:
> > For the delete case,
> > we no longer shrink the tree back to being just the root containing the
> > only remaining object. For the insert case, we no longer store the
> > first object in the root, rather allocating a node structure for it. The
> > reason that this works is that deleting (or inserting) intermediate nodes
> > does not make a difference to a reader holding a slot.
>
>
> Ah, I through that was what it did. So you basically increase the memory
> footprint for tiny files.. have you done any measurements on that?
>
> You raise a valid concern. I haven't. What would you recommend as a
> benchmark/metric to measure this?
One thing you could try is something like the below on a freshly booted
machine, once without and once with the patch:
cd /usr/src/linux-2.6
echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
grep radix /proc/slabinfo
make bzImage
echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
grep radix /proc/slabinfo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists