public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>
To: Maneesh Soni <maneesh@in.ibm.com>
Cc: lse-tech <lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Paul McKenney <Paul.McKenney@us.ibm.com>,
	viro@math.psu.edu, anton@samba.org, andrea@suse.de,
	tytso@mit.edu, riel@conectiva.com.br
Subject: Re: [RFC] Peeling off dcache_lock
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 15:00:00 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020125150000.B1782@in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020121174039.D8289@in.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20020121174039.D8289@in.ibm.com>; from maneesh@in.ibm.com on Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 05:40:39PM +0530

Since there has been speculation about the throughput #s for lower end,
I have put up the comparison graph in the same page 
(http://lse.sf.net/locking/dcache/dcache_lock.html).

As http://lse.sourceforge.net/locking/dcache/results/dbench/base+dc-tpt.png
would show, there is *no* performance degradation at the lower end or
UP. The absolute numbers are in
http://lse.sourceforge.net/locking/dcache/results/dbench/.

Thanks
Dipankar
-- 
Dipankar Sarma  <dipankar@in.ibm.com> http://lse.sourceforge.net
Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Lab, Bangalore, India.


On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 05:40:39PM +0530, Maneesh Soni wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> We have been doing experiments with dcache_lock to provide some relief from it.
> Though dcache_lock is not a very hot lock in comparision to BKL but on higher
> end machines it becomes quite contentious. We would like to have feedbacks,
> comments about the approach taken and guidance on how to improve this further.
> 
> As dcache_lock is acquired maximum number of times while doing lookup, the main
> idea was to remove dcache_lock from d_lookup. With the help of Read Copy Update
> it is possible to lookup the hash list of dentries without taking dcache_lock
> but as d_lookup also updates the lru list, removing dcache_lock from d_lookup
> was not straight forward. Various approaches were tried for that and the most
> successful is doing lazy updation of lru list. 
> 
> Using this the dcache_lock contention was down from 16.5% to 0.95% on an 
> 8-way SMP box and lock utilization was down from 5.3% to 0.89%
> 
> The patch for lazy lru updation using RCU can be found here:
> 
> http://lse.sourceforge.net/locking/dcache/patches/2.4.17/dcache_rcu-lazy_lru-2.4.17-06.patch
> 
> The basic conecpt for this approach is to not update the lru list in d_lookup
> facilitating lockless d_lookup. The lru list can now have dentries with non zero
> reference count also. The lru list is updated while pruning dentry cache. The
> dcache_lock is kept around so that there are no changes in the update side 
> locking.
> 
> The implementation details for lazy lru list updation and other approaches
> can be found here:
> 
> http://lse.sourceforge.net/locking/dcache/dcache_lock.html 
> 
> The above patch works fine with various file systems like ext2, JFS, ext3, /procand has been tested ok with ltp-20020108, dbench, httperf. And doesnot not have
> any adverse effects on uni processor performance.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Maneesh
> 
> 
> -- 
> Maneesh Soni
> IBM Linux Technology Center, 
> IBM India Software Lab, Bangalore.
> Phone: +91-80-5044999 email: maneesh@in.ibm.com
> http://lse.sourceforge.net/locking/rcupdate.html


  parent reply	other threads:[~2002-01-25  9:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-01-21 12:10 [RFC] Peeling off dcache_lock Maneesh Soni
2002-01-24  7:02 ` Rusty Russell
     [not found]   ` <20020125114410.Z8289@in.ibm.com>
2002-01-27  3:42     ` Rusty Russell
2002-02-12 14:11   ` [PATCH][RFC] Peeling off dcache_lock - Ver 2 Maneesh Soni
2002-01-25  9:30 ` Dipankar Sarma [this message]
2002-01-29  0:33   ` [RFC] Peeling off dcache_lock Rusty Russell

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=20020125150000.B1782@in.ibm.com \
    --to=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=Paul.McKenney@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=andrea@suse.de \
    --cc=anton@samba.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=maneesh@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=riel@conectiva.com.br \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    --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