[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081121153453.GA23713@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:34:53 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
rjw@...k.pl, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org, efault@....de,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: pipe/sockets/anon dentries should not have a parent
* Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar a écrit :
>> * Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Before patch, time to run 8 millions of close(socket()) calls on 8
>>> CPUS was :
>>>
>>> real 0m27.496s
>>> user 0m0.657s
>>> sys 3m39.092s
>>>
>>> After patch :
>>>
>>> real 0m23.997s
>>> user 0m0.682s
>>> sys 3m11.193s
>>
>> cool :-)
>>
>> What would it take to get it down to:
>>
>>>> Cost if run one one cpu :
>>>>
>>>> real 0m1.561s
>>>> user 0m0.092s
>>>> sys 0m1.469s
>>
>> i guess asking for a wall-clock cost of 1.561/8 would be too much? :)
>>
>
> It might be possible, depending on the level of hackery I am allowed
> to inject in fs/dcache.c and fs/inode.c :)
I think being able to open+close sockets in a scalable way is an
undisputed prime-time workload on Linux. The numbers you showed look
horrible.
Once you can show how much faster it could go via hacks, it should
only be a matter of time to achieve that safely and cleanly.
> wall cost of 1.56 (each cpu runs one loop of one million iterations)
(indeed.)
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists