From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: Btrfs for mainline Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 11:41:03 -0700 Message-ID: <20090104184103.GE2002@parisc-linux.org> References: <1230722935.4680.5.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <20081231104533.abfb1cf9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1230765549.7538.8.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <87r63ljzox.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20090103191706.GA2002@parisc-linux.org> <1231093310.27690.5.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andi Kleen , Chris Mason , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel , linux-btrfs , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Steven Rostedt , Gregory Haskins To: Peter Zijlstra Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1231093310.27690.5.camel@twins> List-ID: On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 07:21:50PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > The -rt tree has adaptive spin patches for the rtmutex code, its really > not all that hard to do -- the rtmutex code is way more tricky than the > regular mutexes due to all the PI fluff. > > For kernel only locking the simple rule: spin iff the lock holder is > running proved to be simple enough. Any added heuristics like max spin > count etc. only made things worse. The whole idea though did make sense > and certainly improved performance. That implies moving struct thread_info *owner; out from under the CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES code. One of the original justifications for mutexes was: - 'struct mutex' is smaller on most architectures: .e.g on x86, 'struct semaphore' is 20 bytes, 'struct mutex' is 16 bytes. A smaller structure size means less RAM footprint, and better CPU-cache utilization. I'd be reluctant to reverse that decision just for btrfs. Benchmarking required! Maybe I can put a patch together that implements the simple 'spin if it's running' heuristic and throw it at our testing guys on Monday ... -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."