From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Maciej Żenczykowski" <maze@google.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] task_work: restore fifo ordering guarantee
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 19:14:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150908171433.GA14573@redhat.com> (raw)
OK, nobody replied, I will spam you again. Modulo some cosmetic changes
this is the same patch, now with the changelog and I tried to test it.
Eric, Al, Linus, I will appreciate any comment. I still disagree with
the recent c82199061009 "task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee".
I am not very sure about 2/3, so it comes as a separate change.
I used this trivial test-case
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <assert.h>
int main(int argc, const char *argv[])
{
int nfork = atoi(argv[1]);
int nopen = atoi(argv[2]);
while (nfork--) {
if (fork()) {
wait(NULL);
continue;
}
while (nopen--)
assert(open("/dev/null", O_RDONLY) >= 0);
break;
}
return 0;
}
to test the performance, and I see the same numbers with or without this
series. Well, actually the numbers look a little bit better when I do
"time ./o 10 1000000", but most probably this is just a noise.
Please review.
Oleg.
fs/file_table.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
include/linux/fs.h | 5 ++++-
kernel/task_work.c | 12 ++++++++++--
3 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
next reply other threads:[~2015-09-08 17:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-08 17:14 Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2015-09-08 17:14 ` [PATCH 1/3] fput: don't abuse task_work_add() when possible Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-08 17:14 ` [PATCH 2/3] fput: move ->f_next_put into a union with ->f_version Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-08 17:14 ` [PATCH 3/3] Revert "task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee" Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-08 17:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-08 17:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-09 13:16 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-09 16:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-09 16:43 ` Oleg Nesterov
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=20150908171433.GA14573@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maze@google.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.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