Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

On 07/14, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> On 07/14/2015 06:37 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 07/14, Jan Kara wrote:
> >> So unless
> >> I'm missing something and there is a significant performance advantage to
> >> Dave's patches I'm all for using a generic primitive you suggest.
> >
> > I think percpu_rw_semaphore looks a bit better. And even a bit faster.
> > And it will not block __sb_start_write() entirely while freeze_super()
> > sleeps in synchronize_rcu().
>
> That's true, but freeze_super() and the code blocked by it is a
> super-rare path compared with write().

Yes, agreed, this is not that important too.

> > freeze_super() should be faster too after rcu_sync changes, but this
> > is not that important.
> >
> > But again, to me the main advantage is that we can use the generic
> > primitives and remove this nontrivial code in fs/super.c.
> >
> >> Can you perhaps work with Dave on some common resolution?
> >
> > Dave, what do you think? Will you agree with percpu_rw_semaphore ?
>
> Using my little write-1-byte test (under will-it-scale), your 4 patches
> improves the number of writes/sec by 12%.  My 3 patches improve the
> number of writes/sec by 32%.

Thanks... I'll try to understand.

Just in case, could you send me (offlist) these 3 patches?

> My patches manage to get rid of the memory barriers entirely in the fast
> path.  Your approach keeps the barriers.

Where? No, they do not keep the barriers.

Oleg.