[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080507184304.GA15554@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 20:43:04 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
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
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > [ this patch should in fact be a bit worse, because there's two more
> > atomics in the fastpath - the fastpath atomics of the old
> > semaphore code. ]
>
> Well, it doesn't have the irq stuff, which is also pretty costly.
> Also, it doesn't nest the accesses the same way (with the counts being
> *inside* the spinlock and serialized against each other), so I'm not
> 100% sure you'd get the same behaviour.
>
> But yes, it certainly has the potential to show the same slowdown. But
> it's not a very good patch, since not showing it doesn't really prove
> much.
ok, the one below does irq ops and the counter behavior - and because
the critical section also has the old-semaphore atomics i think this
should definitely be a more expensive fastpath than what the new generic
code introduces. So if this patch produces a 40% AIM7 slowdown on
v2.6.25 it's the fastpath overhead (and its effects on slowpath
probability) that makes the difference.
Ingo
------------------->
Subject: add BKL atomic overhead
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Date: Wed May 07 20:09:13 CEST 2008
NOT-Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
---
lib/kernel_lock.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-2.6.25/lib/kernel_lock.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.25.orig/lib/kernel_lock.c
+++ linux-2.6.25/lib/kernel_lock.c
@@ -24,6 +24,8 @@
* Don't use in new code.
*/
static DECLARE_MUTEX(kernel_sem);
+static int global_count;
+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(global_lock);
/*
* Re-acquire the kernel semaphore.
@@ -39,6 +41,7 @@ int __lockfunc __reacquire_kernel_lock(v
{
struct task_struct *task = current;
int saved_lock_depth = task->lock_depth;
+ unsigned long flags;
BUG_ON(saved_lock_depth < 0);
@@ -47,6 +50,10 @@ int __lockfunc __reacquire_kernel_lock(v
down(&kernel_sem);
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&global_lock, flags);
+ global_count++;
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&global_lock, flags);
+
preempt_disable();
task->lock_depth = saved_lock_depth;
@@ -55,6 +62,10 @@ int __lockfunc __reacquire_kernel_lock(v
void __lockfunc __release_kernel_lock(void)
{
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&global_lock, flags);
+ global_count--;
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&global_lock, flags);
+
up(&kernel_sem);
}
@@ -66,12 +77,17 @@ void __lockfunc lock_kernel(void)
struct task_struct *task = current;
int depth = task->lock_depth + 1;
- if (likely(!depth))
+ if (likely(!depth)) {
/*
* No recursion worries - we set up lock_depth _after_
*/
down(&kernel_sem);
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&global_lock, flags);
+ global_count++;
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&global_lock, flags);
+ }
+
task->lock_depth = depth;
}
--
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