Re: Lockless page cache test results

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
>>>Of course, with small files, the actual filename lookup is likely to be the
>>>real limiter.
>>
>>Although that's lockless so it scales. find_get_page will overtake it
>>at some point.
> 
> 
> filename lookup is only lockless for independent files. You end up getting 
> the "dentry->d_lock" for a successful lookup in the lookup path, so if you 
> have multiple threads looking up the same files (or - MUCH more commonly - 
> directories), you're not going to be lockless.

Oh that's true, I forgot. So the many small files case will often have
as much d_lock activity as tree_lock.

> 
> I don't know how we could improve it. I've several times thought that we 
> _should_ be able to do the directory lookups under the rcu read lock and 
> never touch their d_count or d_lock at all, but the locking against 
> directory renaming depends very intimately on d_lock.
> 
> It is _possible_ that we should be able to handle it purely with just 
> memory ordering rather than depending on d_lock. That would be wonderful.
> 
> Of course, we do actually scale pretty damn well already. I'm just saying 
> that it's not perfect.
> 
> See __d_lookup() for details.

Yes I see. Perhaps a seqlock could do the trick (hmm, there already is one),
however we still have to increment the refcount, so there'll always be a
shared cacheline.

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com