Re: [PATCH] dentry and inode cache hash algorithm performance changes.

[Jose R. Santos]

* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> [2004-04-30 15:02:56 -0700]:
> Also, I'd be interested in understanding what the input to the hashing
> functions looked like in this testing.  It could be that the new hash just
> happens to work well with one particular test's dataset.  Please convince
> us otherwise ;)

Andrew - Is there any workload you want me to run to show that this hash
function is going to be equal or better that the one already provided
in Linux?

Remember that my claim is not the this hash function will be better for
every IO workload.  I claim it should not have worst performance than
the default hash function but on some workloads it should perform
better.  The workloads that this should show improvements are those that
use GB of memory to store inode and dentry cache data.  I have run some
test on my old BP6 machine and other than a small improvements while
running find, I did not see any improvements but no regressions either.
Again, if you have a particular workload in mind, Ill be happy to run it
on some of my systems.

Thanks,

-JRS
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/