From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757215Ab1JAUq1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Oct 2011 16:46:27 -0400 Received: from mail.anarazel.de ([217.115.131.40]:46719 "EHLO mail.anarazel.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750976Ab1JAUqU (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Oct 2011 16:46:20 -0400 From: Andres Freund To: Andi Kleen , robertmhaas@gmail.com Subject: Re: Improve lseek scalability v3 Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 22:46:13 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.0-rc8-andres-00005-gb7b65ee; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; ) Cc: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1316128013-21980-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> In-Reply-To: <1316128013-21980-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201110012246.13801.andres@anarazel.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Friday, September 16, 2011 01:06:46 AM Andi Kleen wrote: > v3: No changes, except rebase. All reviews passed. Just reposting > for merging. Is anything/anyone still objecting to this patchset? I just retested it ontop of v3.1-rc8 minus the btrfs parts (which don't apply cleanly anymore because a modified version of 1/7 was merged) and it works fine for some hours of fs heavy db using benchmarking/development. Following is a seemingly trivial forward-port of 7/7. But since I have about no clue in fs development and even less about brfts - which I never used - take it with a grain of salt. It seems a bit ugly to have the mutex_unlock at three places btw. A 2nd patch fixes that, no idea whether its worth the churn. Both are compile tested only. Even at this (2 x E5520 (4 cores)) machine there seems to be a benefit of about 1.5%. Not enough cores to get into the actually problematic performance areas as presented by Robert though. The variance between runs is a bit too high to call it reliable though. Thanks, Andres PS: I have no clue what to do with the s-o-b and changelog when forward porting a patch... So I just copied the original message - which seems wrong.