From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Maciej Żenczykowski" <maze@google.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] task_work: restore fifo ordering guarantee
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 19:14:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150908171433.GA14573@redhat.com> (raw)
OK, nobody replied, I will spam you again. Modulo some cosmetic changes
this is the same patch, now with the changelog and I tried to test it.
Eric, Al, Linus, I will appreciate any comment. I still disagree with
the recent c82199061009 "task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee".
I am not very sure about 2/3, so it comes as a separate change.
I used this trivial test-case
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <assert.h>
int main(int argc, const char *argv[])
{
int nfork = atoi(argv[1]);
int nopen = atoi(argv[2]);
while (nfork--) {
if (fork()) {
wait(NULL);
continue;
}
while (nopen--)
assert(open("/dev/null", O_RDONLY) >= 0);
break;
}
return 0;
}
to test the performance, and I see the same numbers with or without this
series. Well, actually the numbers look a little bit better when I do
"time ./o 10 1000000", but most probably this is just a noise.
Please review.
Oleg.
fs/file_table.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
include/linux/fs.h | 5 ++++-
kernel/task_work.c | 12 ++++++++++--
3 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
next reply other threads:[~2015-09-08 17:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-08 17:14 Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2015-09-08 17:14 ` [PATCH 1/3] fput: don't abuse task_work_add() when possible Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-08 17:14 ` [PATCH 2/3] fput: move ->f_next_put into a union with ->f_version Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-08 17:14 ` [PATCH 3/3] Revert "task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee" Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-08 17:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-08 17:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-09 13:16 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-09 16:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-09 16:43 ` Oleg Nesterov
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=20150908171433.GA14573@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maze@google.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.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.