LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] i_ino uniqueness: alternate approach -- hash the inodes
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:21:44 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200701241621.44923.dada1@cosmosbay.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <45B76BAC.4040408@redhat.com>

On Wednesday 24 January 2007 15:22, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > What is the additional overhead, expressed in relative terms?  ie: as a
> > percentage?
>
> Short answer: ~3-4% in a not very scientific test.
>
> Long answer: I timed 3 different runs of a program that created and then
> closed a pipe 10 million times on a patched and unpatched kernel. I then
> added up the "system" times for each and divided them:

Do you mean this program ?

int count, pfd[2];
for (count = 0 ; count < 10000000 ; count++) {
	pipe(pfd);
	close(pfd[0]);
	close(pfd[1]);
}

The problem is you wont see the overhead of insert/delete the inode in a 
global tree, since you keep hot caches.

To have a better estimate of the overhead, I suggest you try to use more 
active pipes like :

#include <unistd.h>
#define SIZE 16384
int fds[SIZE];

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
        unsigned int i , count ;

        for (i = 0 ; i < SIZE ; i += 2)
                pipe(fds + i);
        i = 0;
        for (count = 0 ; count < 10000000 ; count++) {
                close(fds[i]);
                close(fds[i + 1]);
                pipe(fds + i);
                i = (i + 2) % SIZE;
        }
        return 0;
}


# ulimit -n 20000
# time ./pipebench

Eric

  reply	other threads:[~2007-01-24 15:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-01-16 18:57 Jeff Layton
2007-01-24  4:46 ` Andrew Morton
2007-01-24 14:22   ` Jeff Layton
2007-01-24 15:21     ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2007-01-24 16:57       ` Jeff Layton
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-01-08 20:46 Jeff Layton
2007-01-10 20:58 ` Eric Sandeen
2006-12-29 19:10 Jeff Layton

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200701241621.44923.dada1@cosmosbay.com \
    --to=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=jlayton@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 0/3] i_ino uniqueness: alternate approach -- hash the inodes' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).