From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: peterc@gelato.unsw.edu.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
scalability@gelato.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fixing address space lock contention in 2.6.11
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:08:49 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050303160849.0b80be76.akpm@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050302184653.3ea8e29d.akpm@osdl.org>
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
>
> Peter Chubb <peterc@gelato.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> > As part of the Gelato scalability focus group, we've been running
> > OSDL's Re-AIM7 benchmark with an I/O intensive load with varying
> > numbers of processors. The current kernel shows severe contention on
> > the tree_lock in the address space structure when running on tmpfs or
> > ext2 on a RAM disk.
> >
>
> Yup.
>
> Problem is, an rwlock is a little bit slower than a spinlock on a P4 due to
> the buslocked unlock, and a lot of people have p4's.
>
> Could you do some testing on a 2-way p4?
hm, turns out I did some P4 testing ages ago:
with:
dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=1 count=2M 0.80s user 4.15s system 99% cpu 4.961 total
dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=1 count=2M 0.73s user 4.26s system 100% cpu 4.987 total
dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=1 count=2M 0.79s user 4.25s system 100% cpu 5.034 total
dd if=foo of=/dev/null bs=1 0.80s user 3.12s system 99% cpu 3.928 total
dd if=foo of=/dev/null bs=1 0.77s user 3.15s system 100% cpu 3.914 total
dd if=foo of=/dev/null bs=1 0.92s user 3.02s system 100% cpu 3.935 total
(3.926: 1.87 usecs)
without:
dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=1 count=2M 0.85s user 3.92s system 99% cpu 4.780 total
dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=1 count=2M 0.78s user 4.02s system 100% cpu 4.789 total
dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=1 count=2M 0.82s user 3.94s system 99% cpu 4.763 total
dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=1 count=2M 0.71s user 4.10s system 99% cpu 4.810 tota
dd if=foo of=/dev/null bs=1 0.76s user 2.68s system 100% cpu 3.438 total
dd if=foo of=/dev/null bs=1 0.74s user 2.72s system 99% cpu 3.465 total
dd if=foo of=/dev/null bs=1 0.67s user 2.82s system 100% cpu 3.489 total
dd if=foo of=/dev/null bs=1 0.70s user 2.62s system 99% cpu 3.326 total
(3.430: 1.635 usecs)
So the spinlock->rwlock conversion costs us 240 nsecs on a one-byte-write.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-03-04 0:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-03-03 1:59 [PATCH] Fixing address space lock contention in 2.6.11 Peter Chubb
2005-03-03 2:28 ` Peter Chubb
2005-03-03 2:46 ` Andrew Morton
2005-03-04 0:08 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
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=20050303160849.0b80be76.akpm@osdl.org \
--to=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterc@gelato.unsw.edu.au \
--cc=scalability@gelato.org \
/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