From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F1936B004A for ; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 04:09:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 10:08:18 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: REGRESSION: Performance regressions from switching anon_vma->lock to mutex Message-ID: <20110618080818.GA10351@elte.hu> References: <1308255972.17300.450.camel@schen9-DESK> <1308310080.2355.19.camel@twins> <20110617194029.GA28954@tassilo.jf.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110617194029.GA28954@tassilo.jf.intel.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andi Kleen Cc: Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra , Tim Chen , Shaohua Li , Andrew Morton , Hugh Dickins , KOSAKI Motohiro , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , David Miller , Martin Schwidefsky , Russell King , Paul Mundt , Jeff Dike , Richard Weinberger , "Luck, Tony" , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Mel Gorman , Nick Piggin , Namhyung Kim , "Shi, Alex" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" * Andi Kleen wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 09:46:00AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:28 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > Something like so? Compiles and runs the benchmark in question. > > > > Oh, and can you do this with a commit log and sign-off, and I'll put > > it in my "anon_vma-locking" branch that I have. I'm not going to > > actually merge that branch into mainline until I've seen a few more > > acks or more testing by Tim. > > > > But if Tim's numbers hold up (-32% to +15% performance by just the > > first one, and +15% isn't actually an improvement since tmpfs > > read-ahead should have gotten us to +66%), I think we have to do this > > just to avoid the performance regression. > > You could also add the mutex "optimize caching protocol" > patch I posted earlier to that branch. > > It didn't actually improve Tim's throughput number, but it made the > CPU consumption of the mutex go down. Why have you ignored the negative feedback for that patch: http://marc.info/?i=20110617190705.GA26824@elte.hu and why have you resent this patch without addressing that feedback? Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org