[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901070945450.3057@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 09:50:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Peter Morreale <pmorreale@...ell.com>,
Sven Dietrich <SDietrich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Chris Mason wrote:
>
> So far I haven't found any btrfs benchmarks where this is slower than
> mutexes without any spinning. But, it isn't quite as fast as the btrfs
> spin.
Quite frankly, from our history with ext3 and other filesystems, using a
mutex in the filesystem is generally the wrong thing to do anyway.
Are you sure you can't just use a spinlock, and just release it over IO?
The "have to do IO or extend the btree" case is usually pretty damn clear.
Because it really sounds like you're lock-limited, and you should just try
to clean it up. A pure "just spinlock" in the hotpath is always going to
be better.
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