[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4803375C.3060001@bull.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:52:12 +0200
From: Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net>
To: Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, efault@....de,
manfred@...orfullife.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
xemul@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] Re: Scalability requirements for sysv ipc
Nadia Derbey wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 07:18 +0200, Nadia Derbey wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 18:17 +0200, Nadia.Derbey@...l.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Here is finally the ipc ridr-based implementation I was talking
>>>>> about last
>>>>> week (see http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/4/208).
>>>>> I couldn't avoid much of the code duplication, but at least made
>>>>> things
>>>>> incremental.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does somebody now a test suite that exists for the idr API, that I
>>>>> could
>>>>> run on this new api?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike, can you try to run it on your victim: I had such a hard time
>>>>> building
>>>>> this patch, that I couldn't re-run the test on my 8-core with this new
>>>>> version. So the last results I have are for 2.6.25-rc3-mm1.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I think a careful review should be done to avoid introducing
>>>>> yet other
>>>>> problems :-(
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why duplicate the whole thing, when we converted the Radix tree to be
>>>> RCU safe we did it in-place. Is there a reason this is not done for
>>>> idr?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I did that because I wanted to go fast and try to fix the performance
>>> problem we have with sysV ipc's. I didn't want to introduce (yet
>>> other) regressions in the code that uses idr's today and that works
>>> well ;-)
>>> May be in the future if this rcu based api appears to be ok, we can
>>> replace one with the other?
>>
>>
>>
>>> From what I can see the API doesn't change at all,
>
>
> Well, 1 interface changes, 1 is added and another one went away:
>
> 1) for the preload part (it becomes like the radix-tree preload part):
>
> int idr_pre_get(struct idr *, gfp_t);
> would become
> int idr_pre_get(gfp_t);
>
> 2) idr_pre_get_end() is added (same as radix_tree_preload_end()).
>
> 3) The idr_init() disappears.
>
> You might see that other interfaces are not provided by ridr, but this
> is only because I've taken those that are useful for the ipc part (so
> should not be a problem to make the whole thing rcu safe).
>
>> so I don't see why
>> you need to duplicate - either the new code works as expected or its
>> broken.
>
>
> That's why I asked for an "IDR test suite": I wanted to test potential
> regressions.
>
>> If it works its good enough for all IDR users, if its broken we
>> should fix it. Seems simple enough.. am I missing something obvious?
>>
>
> Regards,
> Nadia
>
BTW, I'm realizing that I forgot to send the results I've got - sorry
for that (I finally could pass the pmsg/psem tests this morning):
These are the output files for the command:
for i in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8;do ./pmsg $i 5;done
pmsg_output.25_rc8_mm1.ref.8: output file for the 2.6.25-rc8-mm1
reference kernel
pmsg_output.25_rc8_mm1.ridr.8: output file for the 2.6.25-rc8-mm1
refrence kernel, with ipc's using
rcu-based idr's
psem_output.25_rc8_mm1.ref.8: same as <1> for the psem test
psem_output.25_rc8_mm1.ridr.8: same as <2> for the psem test
Regards,
Nadia
Download attachment "results.tar.bz2" of type "application/x-redhat-package-manager" (2623 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists