Re: 2.5.36-mm1 dbench 512 profiles

[Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>]

On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 04:17:10PM +0000, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > Isn't increased hold time _good_ on NUMA-Q?  I thought that the 
> > really costy operation was bouncing the lock around the interconnect, 
> > not holding it. 
> 
> Depends what you get it return. The object of fastwalk was to stop the
> cacheline bouncing on all the individual dentry counters, at the cost
> of increased dcache_lock hold times. It's a tradeoff ... and in this
> instance it wins. In general, long lock hold times are bad.

I don't think individual dentry counters are as much a problem as
acquisition of dcache_lock for every path component lookup as done
by the earlier path walking algorithm. The big deal with fastwalk
is that it decreases the number of acquisitions of dcache_lock
for a webserver workload by 70% on an 8-CPU machine. That is avoiding
a lot of possible cacheline bouncing of dcache_lock.


> > In any case, we all know often acquired global locks are a bad idea 
> > on a 32-way, and should be avoided like the plague.  I just wish we 
> > had a dcache solution that didn't even need locks as much... :)
> 
> Well, avoiding data corruption is a preferable goal too. The point of
> RCU is not to have to take a lock for the common read case. I'd expect
> good results from it on the NUMA machines - never been benchmarked, as
> far as I recall.

You can see that in wli's dbench 512 results on his NUMA box.

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