Re: [patch][rfc] fs: shrink struct dentry
From: John Levon <hidden>
Date: 2008-12-02 13:04:32
Also in:
linux-fsdevel
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 08:06:08AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
quoted
Don't you even have a differential profile showing the impact of removing d_cookie? This hash table lookup will now happen on *every* userspace sample that's processed. That's, uh, a lot.I don't know what you mean by every sample that's processed, but won't the hash lookup only happen for the *first* time that a given name is asked for a dcookie (ie. fast_get_dcookie, which, as I said, should actually be moved to fs/dcookies.c)
I mis-read your changes.
quoted
(By all means make your change, but I don't get how it's OK to regress other code, and provide no evidence at all as to its impact.)Tradeoffs are made all the time. This is obviously a good one, and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ By all means make your change, but I don't get how it's OK to regress other code, and provide no evidence at all as to its impact.
I provided evidence of the impact of the improvement in the common case. I also acknowledge it can slow down the uncommon case, but showed ways that can easily be improved. Do you want me to just try to make an artificial case where I mmap thousands of tiny shared libraries and try to overflow the hash and try to detect a difference?
You haven't even bothered to show that it hasn't affected normal oprofile use yet. I can't believe I'm having to argue that you need to test your code. So I think I'll stop.
Did you add d_cookie? If so, then surely at the time you must have
It was added along with the rest of oprofile, so I don't have breakout numbers. I did have oprofile overhead numbers, though I doubt I could find them now. john -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>