From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:17:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:17:28 -0500 Received: from franka.aracnet.com ([216.99.193.44]:17868 "EHLO franka.aracnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:17:27 -0500 Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:27:29 -0800 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Andrew Morton cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Strange performance change 59 -> 61/62 Message-ID: <11870000.1045848448@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: <20030220234522.185f3f6c.akpm@digeo.com> References: <32720000.1045671824@[10.10.2.4]><20030219101957.05088aa1.akpm@digeo.com><17280000.1045811967@[10.10.2.4]><17930000.1045812486@[10.10.2.4]> <20030220234522.185f3f6c.akpm@digeo.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> Some more stats ... which look rather suspicious. 600% increase for >> dentry_open and __mark_inode_dirty? Hmmmmm. > > __mark_inode_dirty() just got itself an smp_mb(). Would be instructive to > disable that. > > dentry_open(): don't know - fs/open.c hasn't changed at all. Perhaps > dcache_rcu has caused additional pingpong? 2.5.59-mjb6 84 __mark_inode_dirty 2.5.61-mjb1 594 __mark_inode_dirty 2.5.61-mjb1-no_mb 74 __mark_inode_dirty Yup, that fixed that one ... but presumably it was put there for a reason, so I can't just rip it out ;-) Thanks, I'll go take a closer look at the others. M