From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Cc: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>,
Rajesh Venkatasubramanian <vrajesh@umich.edu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] anobjrmap 9 priority mjb tree
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 14:52:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040415125237.GA2150@dualathlon.random> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404151122190.6954-100000@localhost.localdomain>
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 11:26:09AM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> >
> > FYI, even without prio-tree, I get a 12% boost from converting i_shared_sem
> > into a spinlock. I'll try doing the same on top of prio-tree next.
>
> Good news, though not a surprise.
>
> Any ideas how we might handle latency from vmtruncate (and
> try_to_unmap) if using prio_tree with i_shared_lock spinlock?
we'd need to break the loop after need_resched returns 1 (and then the
second time we'd just screw the latency and go ahead). I also wanted to
make it a spinlock again like in 2.4, the semaphore probably generates
overscheduling. OTOH the spinlock saved some cpu in slightly different
workloads with big truncates (plus it made the cond_resched trivial w/o
requiring loop break) and I agree with Andrew about that, Martin isn't
benchmarking the other side, the one that made Andrew to change it to a
semaphore.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-04-15 12:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-04-04 12:33 [PATCH] anobjrmap 9 priority mjb tree Hugh Dickins
2004-04-09 20:39 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-04-09 21:31 ` Rajesh Venkatasubramanian
2004-04-09 21:40 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-04-09 23:17 ` Rajesh Venkatasubramanian
2004-04-09 21:51 ` Hugh Dickins
2004-04-09 22:01 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-04-09 22:56 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-04-11 16:09 ` Hugh Dickins
2004-04-11 17:28 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-04-12 4:32 ` Rajesh Venkatasubramanian
2004-04-12 5:24 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-04-12 15:46 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-04-12 18:43 ` Hugh Dickins
2004-04-12 18:58 ` Rajesh Venkatasubramanian
2004-04-12 19:01 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-04-12 19:10 ` Hugh Dickins
2004-04-12 19:38 ` Rajesh Venkatasubramanian
2004-04-12 21:14 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-04-12 21:12 ` Andrew Morton
2004-04-12 21:43 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-04-14 20:18 ` Rajesh Venkatasubramanian
2004-04-15 0:05 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-04-15 0:22 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-04-15 3:40 ` Rajesh Venkatasubramanian
2004-04-15 6:23 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-04-15 10:26 ` Hugh Dickins
2004-04-15 12:52 ` Andrea Arcangeli [this message]
2004-04-15 15:40 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-04-15 16:55 ` Hugh Dickins
2004-04-15 17:14 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-04-15 17:50 ` Hugh Dickins
2004-04-15 18:42 ` Dave McCracken
[not found] ` <192710000.1082052992@flay>
2004-04-15 18:47 ` Rajesh Venkatasubramanian
2004-04-15 22:40 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-04-15 22:33 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-04-15 13:00 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-04-15 14:41 ` Rajesh Venkatasubramanian
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=20040415125237.GA2150@dualathlon.random \
--to=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=hugh@veritas.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbligh@aracnet.com \
--cc=vrajesh@umich.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