All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
Cc: dwmw2@infradead.org, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk,
	manfred@colorfullife.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] kill sleep_on
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 23:36:18 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040117233618.094c9d22.akpm@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1074409074.1569.12.camel@nidelv.trondhjem.org>

Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> wrote:
>
> På su , 18/01/2004 klokka 01:41, skreiv Andrew Morton:
> > It would be nice to fix up the lock_kernel()s in the NFS client: SMP lock
> > contention is quite high in there.
> 
> Chuck did a study of that particular issue some 2-3 years ago, but we've
> addressed all the top problems on his list since then. Do you have any
> new numbers to show us? I ask because I'm not at all convinced that the
> BKL adds significantly to our latencies for the moment (I've been
> looking at those number in the last few days due to the readahead
> problems that have already been reported).
> 
> I am, however, quite convinced that we need new statistics on this sort
> of issue. Chuck is therefore working on a set of patches to add an
> "iostat"-like tool to the NFS client. Hopefully that will help settle
> these questions.
> 

Well a quick profile of `dbench 4' on a localhost mount on a P4-HT:

c01445fc kmem_cache_alloc                            495   6.1875
c0140d28 buffered_rmqueue                            514   1.7133
c012a8b4 del_timer_sync                             1043   3.7250
c013ea58 generic_file_aio_write_nolock              1316   0.4398
c011fa60 __wake_up                                  1472  33.4545
c0158a35 .text.lock.read_write                      1541  26.1186
c012113f .text.lock.sched                           2443   4.1197
c011f3f4 schedule                                   2782   1.8065
c0109034 default_idle                              65504 1259.6923
00000000 total                                     91786   0.2234

Turning on spinlock inlining:

c0143ec0 kmem_cache_alloc                            464   6.1053
c01405c8 buffered_rmqueue                            510   1.6346
c012a260 __mod_timer                                 540   1.7308
c012a4d4 del_timer_sync                              949   3.3893
c013e378 generic_file_aio_write_nolock              1340   0.4479
c011fa1c __wake_up                                  1556  29.9231
c0157054 remote_llseek                              1886   6.6408
c011f3a4 schedule                                   5158   3.3407
c0109034 default_idle                              33731 648.6731
00000000 total                                     59918   0.1457

That's quite a lot of contention on the lock_kernel() in remote_llseek().

The context switch rate is 45000/sec, so schedule() gets a workout.

I do recall seeing quite a lot of BKL contention within NFS itself running
across 100bT on 4-way.  That was several months ago - maybe things
improved?


  parent reply	other threads:[~2004-01-18  7:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-01-17 18:43 [RFC] kill sleep_on Manfred Spraul
2004-01-17 19:19 ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-01-17 19:28 ` David Woodhouse
2004-01-17 20:10   ` viro
2004-01-17 23:18     ` Trond Myklebust
2004-01-17 23:45     ` David Woodhouse
2004-01-18  6:41       ` Andrew Morton
2004-01-18  6:57         ` Trond Myklebust
2004-01-18  7:05           ` Trond Myklebust
2004-01-18  7:36           ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2004-01-18  7:44             ` Manfred Spraul
2004-01-18  8:03               ` Trond Myklebust
2004-01-18  8:18                 ` Manfred Spraul
2004-01-18 17:07                   ` Trond Myklebust
2004-01-18  7:54             ` Trond Myklebust

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=20040117233618.094c9d22.akpm@osdl.org \
    --to=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=manfred@colorfullife.com \
    --cc=trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no \
    --cc=viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk \
    /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.