[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140520135723.GB15177@thunk.org>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 09:57:23 -0400
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke <thavatchai.makpahibulchoke@...com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ext4: Reduce contention on s_orphan_lock
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 02:33:23AM -0600, Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke wrote:
> Please see my one comment below.
>
> BTW, I've run aim7 on your before I notice what I commented below. There are workloads that my patch outperform yours and vice versa. I will have to redo it over again.
Thavatchai, it would be really great if you could do lock_stat runs
with both Jan's latest patches as well as yours. We need to
understand where the differences are coming from.
As I understand things, there are two differences between Jan and your
approaches. The first is that Jan is using the implicit locking of
i_mutex to avoid needing to keep a hashed array of mutexes to
synchronize an individual inode's being added or removed to the orphan
list.
The second is that you've split the orphan mutex into an on-disk mutex
and a in-memory spinlock.
Is it possible to split up your patch so we can measure the benefits
of each of these two changes? More interestingly, is there a way we
can use the your second change in concert with Jan's changes?
Regards,
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists