From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: AIM7 40% regression with 2.6.26-rc1 Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 10:16:24 -0700 Message-ID: <20080507101624.5524d3c1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <1210052904.3453.30.camel@ymzhang> <20080506114449.GC32591@elte.hu> <20080506120934.GH19219@parisc-linux.org> <20080506162332.GI19219@parisc-linux.org> <20080506102153.5484c6ac.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080507163811.GY19219@parisc-linux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Ingo Molnar , "J. Bruce Fields" , "Zhang, Yanmin" , LKML , Alexander Viro , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:52582 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752483AbYEGRQl (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 13:16:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 7 May 2008 10:08:18 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds wrote: > Which is why I'm 100% convinced it's not even worth saving the old code. > It needs to use mutexes, or spinlocks. I bet it has *nothing* to do with > "slow path" other than the fact that it gets to that slow path much more > these days. Stupid question: why doesn't lock_kernel() use a mutex? (stupid answer: it'll trigger might_sleep() checks when we do it early in boot with irqs disabled, but we can fix that) (And __might_sleep()'s system_state check might even save us from that) Of course, we shouldn't change anything until we've worked out why the new semaphores got slower.