From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>,
<linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 0/5] fs/locks: Use plain percpu spinlocks instead of lglock to protect file_lock
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 16:58:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54EC9FA2.1030000@bmw-carit.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87vbiwwotb.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
On 02/20/2015 05:05 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de> writes:
>>
>> I am looking at how to get rid of lglock. Reason being -rt is not too
>> happy with that lock, especially that it uses arch_spinlock_t and
>
> AFAIK it could just use normal spinlock. Have you tried that?
I have tried it. At least fs/locks.c didn't blow up. The benchmark
results (lockperf) indicated that using normal spinlocks is even
slightly faster. Simply converting felt like cheating. It might be
necessary for the other user (kernel/stop_machine.c). Currently it looks
like there is some additional benefit getting lglock away in fs/locks.c.
cheers,
daniel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-24 15:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-20 14:39 [RFC v1 0/5] fs/locks: Use plain percpu spinlocks instead of lglock to protect file_lock Daniel Wagner
2015-02-20 14:39 ` [RFC v1 1/5] locks: Remove unnecessary IS_POSIX test Daniel Wagner
2015-02-20 14:39 ` [RFC v1 2/5] locks: Split insert/delete block functions into flock/posix parts Daniel Wagner
2015-02-20 14:39 ` [RFC v1 3/5] seq_file: Add percpu seq_hlist helpers with locking iterators Daniel Wagner
2015-02-20 14:39 ` [RFC v1 4/5] locks: Use percpu spinlocks to protect file_lock_list Daniel Wagner
2015-02-20 14:39 ` [RFC v1 5/5] locks: Use blocked_lock_lock only to protect blocked_hash Daniel Wagner
2015-02-20 16:05 ` [RFC v1 0/5] fs/locks: Use plain percpu spinlocks instead of lglock to protect file_lock Andi Kleen
2015-02-24 15:58 ` Daniel Wagner [this message]
2015-02-24 21:06 ` Jeff Layton
2015-02-27 15:01 ` Daniel Wagner
2015-02-27 15:30 ` Jeff Layton
2015-03-02 12:58 ` Daniel Wagner
2015-03-03 0:29 ` Jeff Layton
2015-03-04 14:03 ` Daniel Wagner
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=54EC9FA2.1030000@bmw-carit.de \
--to=daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=jkacur@redhat.com \
--cc=jlayton@poochiereds.net \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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