From: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
To: Dave Jones <davej@suse.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>,
viro@math.psu.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5: push BKL out of llseek
Date: 29 Jan 2002 21:37:57 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1012358278.817.83.camel@phantasy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020130032138.H16379@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201291602510.1747-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>, <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201291602510.1747-100000@penguin.transmeta.com> <1012351309.813.56.camel@phantasy> <3C574BD1.E5343312@zip.com.au> <1012357211.817.67.camel@phantasy> <20020130032138.H16379@suse.de>
On Tue, 2002-01-29 at 21:21, Dave Jones wrote:
> did you benchmark with anything other than dbench ?
No, and I really don't want to hear how dbench is a terrible benchmark.
I didn't craft the patch around dbench and I think, here at least,
dbench is an OK benchmark. I ran it numerous times over multiple client
loads.
I think its clear there won't be a negative impact, because:
- acquiring the inode semaphore isn't any heavier (in the acquire
case) than the BKL
- the lock contention on each inode semaphore is relatively
zero
- besides just scaling badly with the using a global lock against
all inodes, we use the BKL which in such workloads is already
highly contested.
That said, I did do some lock profiling and latency tests. Contention
was near-zero, but I only did 2-way testing. Under the preemptible
kernel, while running dbench, scheduling latency improved 8.9%.
Robert Love
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-01-30 2:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-01-30 0:00 [PATCH] 2.5: push BKL out of llseek Robert Love
2002-01-30 0:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-01-30 0:41 ` Robert Love
2002-01-30 0:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-01-30 2:24 ` Robert Love
2002-01-30 1:26 ` Andrew Morton
2002-01-30 2:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-01-30 2:20 ` Robert Love
2002-01-30 2:20 ` Andrew Morton
2002-01-30 2:21 ` Dave Jones
2002-01-30 2:37 ` Robert Love [this message]
2002-01-30 2:50 ` Nigel Gamble
2002-01-30 3:19 ` Andrew Morton
2002-01-30 9:34 ` Nigel Gamble
2002-01-30 10:36 ` Russell King
2002-01-30 4:54 ` Alexander Viro
2002-01-30 8:00 ` Trond Myklebust
2002-01-30 13:39 ` Robert Love
2002-01-30 4:50 ` Anton Blanchard
2002-01-30 5:03 ` Robert Love
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-01-30 21:14 Martin Wirth
2002-01-31 15:39 Martin Wirth
2002-01-31 21:06 ` Nigel Gamble
2002-02-01 19:29 John Hawkes
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=1012358278.817.83.camel@phantasy \
--to=rml@tech9.net \
--cc=akpm@zip.com.au \
--cc=davej@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
--cc=viro@math.psu.edu \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox