[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:49:50 +0400
From: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
Nathan Lynch <ntl@...ox.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] pids: Make it possible to clone tasks with given
pids
On 11/11/2011 08:22 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 08:18:19PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>>> To add a bit, it's also one of the more *serialized* path. Doing it in
>>> parallel might actually hurt,
>>
>> Can you elaborate on this, please?
>
> It goes through a lot of locks - tasklist_lock, mmlist_lock, other
> subsys locks depending on CLONE_* options. If you try to do that on
> multiple CPUs in parallel, depending on the level of concurrency,
> contention and extra cacheline bounces may dominate the overhead.
O_O Here are the times of forks on my box (4cores X 2threads, Xeon, RHEL6)
1 cpu 500k forks - 37s
2 cpus on different cores 500k forks on each in parallel - 39s
4 cpus on different cores 500k forks on each in parallel - 41s
8 cpus 500k forks on each in parallel - 1m5s
So the fork() scaling seems quite good to me.
> Thanks.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists