[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [RFC][PATCH] dcache and rmap

To: "Lever, Charles" <Charles.Lever@netapp.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC][PATCH] dcache and rmap
From: "Martin J. Bligh" <Martin.Bligh@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 19:05:32 -0700
cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Fake-Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
In-Reply-To: <6440EA1A6AA1D5118C6900902745938E50CEFA@black.eng.netapp.com>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mm-archive@humbolt.geo.uu.nl
References: <6440EA1A6AA1D5118C6900902745938E50CEFA@black.eng.netapp.com>
Sender: Rik van Riel <riel@nl.linux.org>

> another good reason to keep these caches small is that
> their data structures are faster to traverse.  when
> they are larger than necessary they probably evict more
> important data from the L1 cache during a dcache or
> inode lookup.

I think a better way to fix this would be by not dumping
everything into one massive global hash table. 

M.

--
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/

References:
- RE: [RFC][PATCH] dcache and rmap
  - From: "Lever, Charles" <Charles.Lever@netapp.com>

Prev by Date: RE: [RFC][PATCH] dcache and rmap
Next by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH] dcache and rmap
Prev by thread: RE: [RFC][PATCH] dcache and rmap
Next by thread: [PATCH] rmap 13a
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread