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
next prev 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