From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>,
<linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 0/5] fs/locks: Use plain percpu spinlocks instead of lglock to protect file_lock
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 16:58:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54EC9FA2.1030000@bmw-carit.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87vbiwwotb.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
On 02/20/2015 05:05 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de> writes:
>>
>> I am looking at how to get rid of lglock. Reason being -rt is not too
>> happy with that lock, especially that it uses arch_spinlock_t and
>
> AFAIK it could just use normal spinlock. Have you tried that?
I have tried it. At least fs/locks.c didn't blow up. The benchmark
results (lockperf) indicated that using normal spinlocks is even
slightly faster. Simply converting felt like cheating. It might be
necessary for the other user (kernel/stop_machine.c). Currently it looks
like there is some additional benefit getting lglock away in fs/locks.c.
cheers,
daniel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-24 15:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-20 14:39 [RFC v1 0/5] fs/locks: Use plain percpu spinlocks instead of lglock to protect file_lock Daniel Wagner
2015-02-20 14:39 ` [RFC v1 1/5] locks: Remove unnecessary IS_POSIX test Daniel Wagner
2015-02-20 14:39 ` [RFC v1 2/5] locks: Split insert/delete block functions into flock/posix parts Daniel Wagner
2015-02-20 14:39 ` [RFC v1 3/5] seq_file: Add percpu seq_hlist helpers with locking iterators Daniel Wagner
2015-02-20 14:39 ` [RFC v1 4/5] locks: Use percpu spinlocks to protect file_lock_list Daniel Wagner
2015-02-20 14:39 ` [RFC v1 5/5] locks: Use blocked_lock_lock only to protect blocked_hash Daniel Wagner
2015-02-20 16:05 ` [RFC v1 0/5] fs/locks: Use plain percpu spinlocks instead of lglock to protect file_lock Andi Kleen
2015-02-24 15:58 ` Daniel Wagner [this message]
2015-02-24 21:06 ` Jeff Layton
2015-02-27 15:01 ` Daniel Wagner
2015-02-27 15:30 ` Jeff Layton
2015-03-02 12:58 ` Daniel Wagner
2015-03-03 0:29 ` Jeff Layton
2015-03-04 14:03 ` Daniel Wagner
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=54EC9FA2.1030000@bmw-carit.de \
--to=daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=jkacur@redhat.com \
--cc=jlayton@poochiereds.net \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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.