From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
andi@firstfloor.org, oleg@redhat.com, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
hch@lst.de, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, mpm@selenic.com,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Convert epoll to a bitlock
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 03:48:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <498901E7.4050405@cosmosbay.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0902031446280.23050@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Davide Libenzi a écrit :
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>> Andrew Morton a écrit :
>>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 11:20:09 -0700
>>> Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt Mackall suggested converting epoll's ep_lock to a bitlock as a way of
>>>> saving space in struct file. This patch makes that change.
>>> hrm. bit_spin_lock() makes people upset (large penguiny people). iirc
>>> it doesn't have all the correct/well-understood memory/compiler
>>> ordering semantics which spinlocks have. And lockdep doesn't know about
>>> it.
>>>
>> In a previous attempt (2005), I suggested using a single global lock.
>>
>> http://search.luky.org/linux-kernel.2005/msg50862.html
>>
>> Probably an array of hashed spinlocks would be more than enough.
>
> That could be done, although I'm not sure it's worth going that way to
> save 4 bytes. The effective saving rate is not even 4/sizeof(struct file)
> since struct file never comes alone, and when you allocate a struct file
> you always carry more allocations behind (at least for the cases where you
> tend to have a lot of them around, so size would matter).
> The add/remove path in epoll is not a super-hot one, so it could be done.
> I dunno how this change matter with the patchset though.
Back in 2005, I saved 4 bytes per file, and because of HWCACHE alignment, sizeof(struct file)
shrinked by 64 bytes. With more than 1.000.000 sockets opened on a busy server, it saved
64 MB of ram. At that time, this mattered (8GB of ram), but in 2009, 64 MB is so small
I dont care anymore about sizeof(struct file)
AFAIK, I just checked on x86_64 and got : sizeof(struct file)=0xc0 , so thats perfect :)
(Only thing I still do is to move private_data in the first cache line of struct file, because
it speedups a lot socket operation, when dealing with 1.000.000 sockets : one cache line miss
avoided per socket syscall)
diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
index 6022f44..03b2227 100644
--- a/include/linux/fs.h
+++ b/include/linux/fs.h
@@ -842,6 +842,8 @@ struct file {
#define f_dentry f_path.dentry
#define f_vfsmnt f_path.mnt
const struct file_operations *f_op;
+ /* needed for tty driver, and maybe others */
+ void *private_data;
atomic_long_t f_count;
unsigned int f_flags;
fmode_t f_mode;
@@ -854,8 +856,6 @@ struct file {
#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY
void *f_security;
#endif
- /* needed for tty driver, and maybe others */
- void *private_data;
#ifdef CONFIG_EPOLL
/* Used by fs/eventpoll.c to link all the hooks to this file */
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-04 2:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-02 18:20 [PATCH/RFC] F_SETFL/Fasync BKL removal, now without unsightly global locks Jonathan Corbet
2009-02-02 18:20 ` [PATCH 1/4] Use bit operations for file->f_flags Jonathan Corbet
2009-02-03 21:37 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-02 18:20 ` [PATCH 2/4] Convert epoll to a bitlock Jonathan Corbet
2009-02-03 21:39 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-03 21:55 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-02-03 22:05 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-03 22:22 ` Matt Mackall
2009-02-03 22:37 ` Jonathan Corbet
2009-02-03 22:53 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-03 23:09 ` Davide Libenzi
2009-02-03 23:12 ` Davide Libenzi
2009-02-03 23:19 ` Jonathan Corbet
2009-02-03 23:29 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-04 7:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-02-04 7:20 ` Nick Piggin
2009-02-04 13:34 ` Jonathan Corbet
2009-02-04 16:51 ` Davide Libenzi
2009-02-03 23:08 ` Davide Libenzi
2009-02-04 2:48 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2009-02-04 1:00 ` wli
2009-02-04 4:54 ` Nick Piggin
2009-02-02 18:20 ` [PATCH 3/4] Move FASYNC bit handling to f_op->fasync() Jonathan Corbet
2009-02-02 18:20 ` [PATCH 4/4] Rationalize fasync return values Jonathan Corbet
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=498901E7.4050405@cosmosbay.com \
--to=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=davidel@xmailserver.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mpm@selenic.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--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