All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>
To: Maneesh Soni <maneesh@in.ibm.com>
Cc: lse-tech <lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Paul McKenney <Paul.McKenney@us.ibm.com>,
	viro@math.psu.edu, anton@samba.org, andrea@suse.de,
	tytso@mit.edu, riel@conectiva.com.br
Subject: Re: [RFC] Peeling off dcache_lock
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 15:00:00 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020125150000.B1782@in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020121174039.D8289@in.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20020121174039.D8289@in.ibm.com>; from maneesh@in.ibm.com on Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 05:40:39PM +0530

Since there has been speculation about the throughput #s for lower end,
I have put up the comparison graph in the same page 
(http://lse.sf.net/locking/dcache/dcache_lock.html).

As http://lse.sourceforge.net/locking/dcache/results/dbench/base+dc-tpt.png
would show, there is *no* performance degradation at the lower end or
UP. The absolute numbers are in
http://lse.sourceforge.net/locking/dcache/results/dbench/.

Thanks
Dipankar
-- 
Dipankar Sarma  <dipankar@in.ibm.com> http://lse.sourceforge.net
Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Lab, Bangalore, India.


On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 05:40:39PM +0530, Maneesh Soni wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> We have been doing experiments with dcache_lock to provide some relief from it.
> Though dcache_lock is not a very hot lock in comparision to BKL but on higher
> end machines it becomes quite contentious. We would like to have feedbacks,
> comments about the approach taken and guidance on how to improve this further.
> 
> As dcache_lock is acquired maximum number of times while doing lookup, the main
> idea was to remove dcache_lock from d_lookup. With the help of Read Copy Update
> it is possible to lookup the hash list of dentries without taking dcache_lock
> but as d_lookup also updates the lru list, removing dcache_lock from d_lookup
> was not straight forward. Various approaches were tried for that and the most
> successful is doing lazy updation of lru list. 
> 
> Using this the dcache_lock contention was down from 16.5% to 0.95% on an 
> 8-way SMP box and lock utilization was down from 5.3% to 0.89%
> 
> The patch for lazy lru updation using RCU can be found here:
> 
> http://lse.sourceforge.net/locking/dcache/patches/2.4.17/dcache_rcu-lazy_lru-2.4.17-06.patch
> 
> The basic conecpt for this approach is to not update the lru list in d_lookup
> facilitating lockless d_lookup. The lru list can now have dentries with non zero
> reference count also. The lru list is updated while pruning dentry cache. The
> dcache_lock is kept around so that there are no changes in the update side 
> locking.
> 
> The implementation details for lazy lru list updation and other approaches
> can be found here:
> 
> http://lse.sourceforge.net/locking/dcache/dcache_lock.html 
> 
> The above patch works fine with various file systems like ext2, JFS, ext3, /procand has been tested ok with ltp-20020108, dbench, httperf. And doesnot not have
> any adverse effects on uni processor performance.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Maneesh
> 
> 
> -- 
> Maneesh Soni
> IBM Linux Technology Center, 
> IBM India Software Lab, Bangalore.
> Phone: +91-80-5044999 email: maneesh@in.ibm.com
> http://lse.sourceforge.net/locking/rcupdate.html


  parent reply	other threads:[~2002-01-25  9:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-01-21 12:10 [RFC] Peeling off dcache_lock Maneesh Soni
2002-01-24  7:02 ` Rusty Russell
     [not found]   ` <20020125114410.Z8289@in.ibm.com>
2002-01-27  3:42     ` Rusty Russell
2002-02-12 14:11   ` [PATCH][RFC] Peeling off dcache_lock - Ver 2 Maneesh Soni
2002-01-25  9:30 ` Dipankar Sarma [this message]
2002-01-29  0:33   ` [RFC] Peeling off dcache_lock Rusty Russell

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=20020125150000.B1782@in.ibm.com \
    --to=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=Paul.McKenney@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=andrea@suse.de \
    --cc=anton@samba.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=maneesh@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=riel@conectiva.com.br \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=viro@math.psu.edu \
    /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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.