On Friday November 10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I made some optimizations on racache in nfsd in test10. The idea is to
> replace with existing fixed length table for readahead cache in NFSD with a
> hash table.
> The old racache is essentially ineffective in dealing with large # of
> files, and yet eats CPU cycles in scanning the table (even though the table
> is small),
> the hash table-based is much more effective and fast. I have generated the
> patch for test10 and tested it.
>
> (See attached file: nfshdiff)(See attached file: nfsdiff)
>
>
> Ying
Thanks for this.
A couple of questions and comments:
1/ Do you have any stats showing what sort of speedup this gives -
I'm curious.
2/ Was there a particular reason that you didn't use the
include/linux/list.h
list structures for the hash and lru chains? If not, I suggest
that doing so would be a good idea. It should make the code
clearer and more in-keeping with other code in the kernel.
3/ It is easiest for (many of) us if you just include the patch
in-line in your email messages rather than as an attachment. You
can then be sure that EVERY mail reader can display it
effectively, and Linus has said a number of times that he doesn't
like attachments.
3a/ If you or your mailer insists on using attachments, please make
sure that the mime-type of the attachment is correct - text/plain,
not applications/x-unknown. Again, that makes it a lot easier to
read your patch.
4/ I doubt that this is significant enough to go in before 2.4.0-final now,
but it probably has a reasonable chance of getting in shortly
afterwards.
NeilBrown
knfsd maintainer.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
