On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 09:40:28AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Jan Kara writes:
> >
> > What we really need is a counter where we can better estimate counts
> > accumulated in the percpu part of it. As the counter approaches zero, it's
> > CPU overhead will have to become that of a single locked va
On Mon 07-04-14 09:40:28, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Jan Kara writes:
> >
> > What we really need is a counter where we can better estimate counts
> > accumulated in the percpu part of it. As the counter approaches zero, it's
> > CPU overhead will have to become that of a single locked variable but when
Jan Kara writes:
>
> What we really need is a counter where we can better estimate counts
> accumulated in the percpu part of it. As the counter approaches zero, it's
> CPU overhead will have to become that of a single locked variable but when
> the value of counter is relatively high, we want it
On Sat 05-04-14 11:28:17, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> On 04/05/2014 04:56 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> >On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 01:00:55AM +0800, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> >>On a larger system 1728 cores/4.5TB memory and 3.13.9, I'm seeing very low
> >>600KB/s cached write performance to a local ext4 f
On 04/05/2014 04:56 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 01:00:55AM +0800, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
On a larger system 1728 cores/4.5TB memory and 3.13.9, I'm seeing very low
600KB/s cached write performance to a local ext4 filesystem:
> Thanks for the heads up. Most (all?) of the
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 01:00:55AM +0800, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> On a larger system 1728 cores/4.5TB memory and 3.13.9, I'm seeing very low
> 600KB/s cached write performance to a local ext4 filesystem:
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for the heads up. Most (all?) of the ext4 don't have systems
with thousa
6 matches
Mail list logo
