Re: 2.6.0-test9-mm3

From: davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen)
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.0-test9-mm3
Date: 17 Nov 2003 20:58:31 GMT	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bpbcpn$fh1$1@gatekeeper.tmr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 100480000.1068841761@flay

In article <100480000.1068841761@flay>,
Martin J. Bligh <mbligh@aracnet.com> wrote:
| >> > - Several ext2 and ext3 allocator fixes.  These need serious testing on
| >> > big SMP.
| >> 
| >> OK, ext3 survived a swatting on the 16-way as well. It's still slow as
| >> snot, but it does work ;-) No changes from before, methinks.
| >> 
| >> Diffprofile for kernbench (-j) from ext2 to ext3 on mm3
| >> 
| >>      27022    16.3% total
| >>      24069    53.3% default_idle
| >>        583     2.4% page_remove_rmap
| >>        539   248.4% fd_install
| >>        478   388.6% __blk_queue_bounce
| > 
| > What driver are you using ? Why are you bouncing ?
| 
| qlogicisp. Because the driver is crap? ;-)

The question is, does that make your testing better or worse in terms of
checking the new code? Clearly you have done a good job of checking the
"disk can't keep up" case, is there a need to test further with a much
higher transaction rate?

I would assume that if there were lock issues they would have shown up,
which is probably all that's needed.
-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.