From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@texware.it>,
Alexander Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] remove the BKL: Replace BKL in mount/umount syscalls with a mutex
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:44:31 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090417184431.GB3719@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0904171039080.4042@localhost.localdomain>
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:03:31AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Hmm. It might also just be my fevered imagination. I'd like to say it was
> Matthew Wilcox, but really, my mind is going.
>
> Ahh. Bug google backs me up. As long as I have google, I can keep
> Alzheimer's at bay: "Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()"
> thread on lkml back in October 2000. After we had actually done the BKL
> removal.
>
> So we actually did apply it (in 2.4.0-test9, and then reverted it again
> (in -test11, I think). Google for "file_lock_sem fs/locks.c" and see some
> of the discussion. The end result was to go back to the BKL due to Apache
> slowdowns.
That's some good ancient history ;-) It probably would make sense to
use a mutex rather than the BKL these days now that we spin on mutexes
if the other process is running. Plus, I don't think modern Apache uses
file locks any more.
There was another attempt to remove the BKL from locks.c by Dave Hansen
a few years later. That one foundered on the proposed locking scheme
being unadulterated crap; I seem to remember pointing out that it was
gathering O(n^2) locks ...
> But I seem to remember a later patch (in the last year or two) from Willy
> too. Google doesn't help me, so that's probably just my fevered mind. But
> I'm cc'ing Willy anyway.
Fortunately, this patch wasn't the product of a fevered anything. It
was in response to the performance regressions I introduced by
introducing the generic semaphores that were too fair.
It didn't deal with the really knotty problem which was the NFS server
still running under the BKL and relying on the BKL to prevent other
CPUs from messing with the list of locks.
Since the problem turned out to be the TTY layer and not the file
locking code, we just dropped the patch, but if we'd like to resurrect
it again, we need to talk to the NFS folks. Probably Bruce Fields is
the appropriate sucker.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-17 18:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-16 14:27 [PATCH -tip] remove the BKL: Replace BKL in mount/umount syscalls with a mutex Alessio Igor Bogani
2009-04-16 14:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-04-16 16:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-16 17:01 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-04-16 17:13 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-17 0:05 ` Al Viro
2009-04-16 16:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-16 16:58 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-16 23:56 ` Al Viro
2009-04-17 0:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-17 0:13 ` Al Viro
2009-04-17 0:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-17 0:38 ` Al Viro
2009-04-17 16:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-17 17:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-17 17:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-17 17:31 ` Jonathan Corbet
2009-04-17 18:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-17 18:44 ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
2009-04-22 17:28 ` J. Bruce Fields
2009-04-17 18:08 ` Al Viro
2009-04-17 18:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-17 17:41 ` Al Viro
2009-04-17 17:34 ` Al Viro
2009-04-16 23:49 ` Al Viro
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=20090417184431.GB3719@linux.intel.com \
--to=willy@linux.intel.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=abogani@texware.it \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--cc=viro@ftp.linux.org.uk \
/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