[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805071028400.3024@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 10:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
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>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: AIM7 40% regression with 2.6.26-rc1
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> There's far more normal mutex fastpath use during an AIM7 run than any
> BKL use. So if it's due to any direct fastpath overhead and the
> resulting widening of the window for the real slowdown, we should see a
> severe slowdown on AIM7 with CONFIG_MUTEX_DEBUG=y. Agreed?
Not agreed.
The BKL is special because it is a *single* lock.
All the "normal" mutex code use fine-grained locking, so even if you slow
down the fast path, that won't cause the same kind of fastpath->slowpath
increase.
In order to see the fastpath->slowpath thing, you do need to have many
threads hitting the same lock: ie the slowdown has to result in real
contention.
Almost no mutexes have any potential for contention what-so-ever, except
for things that very consciously try to hit it (multiple threads doing
readdir and/or file creation on the *same* directory etc).
The BKL really is special.
Linus
--
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