[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080506174954.GB9014@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 19:49:54 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...i.umich.edu>,
"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: AIM7 40% regression with 2.6.26-rc1
* Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx> wrote:
> > down(), down_interruptible() and down_try() should use
> > spin_lock_irq(), not irqsave.
>
> We talked about this ... the BKL actually requires that you be able to
> acquire it with interrupts disabled. [...]
hm, where does it require it, besides the early bootup code? (which
should just be fixed)
down_trylock() is OK as irqsave/irqrestore for legacy reasons, but that
is fundamentally atomic anyway.
> > up() seems to be doing wake-one, FIFO which is nice. Did the
> > implementation which we just removed also do that? Was it perhaps
> > accidentally doing LIFO or something like that?
>
> That's a question for someone who knows x86 assembler, I think.
the assembly is mostly just for the fastpath - and a 40% regression
cannot be about fastpath differences. In the old code the scheduling
happens in lib/semaphore-sleeper.c, and from the looks of it it appears
to be a proper FIFO as well. (plus this small wakeup weirdness it has)
i reviewed the new code in kernel/semaphore.c as well and can see
nothing bad in it - it does proper wake-up, FIFO queueing, like the
mutex code.
Ingo
--
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