[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFx24n-W4-wTtrfbt9PNvVd7n+SvThnO6OQ74uW4yNrGxw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 17:50:59 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>
Cc: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] radix-tree: iterating general cleanup
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov
<khlebnikov@...nvz.org> wrote:
>
> If do not count comments here actually is negative line count change.
Ok, fair enough.
> And if drop (almost) unused radix_tree_gang_lookup_tag_slot() and
> radix_tree_gang_lookup_slot() total bloat-o-meter score becomes negative
> too.
Good.
> There also some simple bit-hacks: find-next-bit instead of dumb loops in
> tagged-lookup.
>
> Here some benchmark results: there is radix-tree with 1024 slots, I fill and
> tag every <step> slot,
> and run lookup for all slots with radix_tree_gang_lookup() and
> radix_tree_gang_lookup_tag() in the loop.
> old/new rows -- nsec per iteration over whole tree.
>
> tagged-lookup
> step 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
> old 7035 5248 4742 4308 4217 4133 4030 3920 4038 3933 3914 3796 3851 3755 3819 3582
> new 3578 2617 1899 1426 1220 1058 936 822 845 749 695 679 648 575 591 509
>
> so, new tagged-lookup always faster, especially for sparse trees.
Do you have any benchmarks when it's actually used by higher levels,
though? I guess that will involve find_get_pages(), and we don't have
all that any of them, but it would be lovely to see some real load
(even if it is limited to one of the filesystems that uses this)
numbers too..
> New normal lookup works faster for dense trees, on sparse trees it slower.
I think that should be the common case, so that may be fine. Again, it
would be nice to see numbers that are for something else than just the
lookup - an actual use of it in some real context.
Anyway, the patches themselves looked fine to me, modulo the fact that
I wasn't all that happy with the new __find_next_bit, and I think it's
better to not expose it in a generic header file. But I would really
like to see more "real" numbers for the series
Thanks,
Linus
--
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