[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090402184305.GI28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 19:43:05 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] fs: mnt_want_write speedup
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 08:22:10PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 12:13:43PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 05:13 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 03:11:17PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > > I'm feeling a bit better about these, although I am still honestly quite
> > > > afraid of the barriers. I also didn't like all the #ifdefs much, but
> > > > here's some help on that.
> > >
> > > FWIW, we have this in suse kernels because page fault performance was
> > > so bad compared with SLES10. mnt_want_write & co was I think the 2nd
> > > biggest offender for file backed mappings (after pvops). I think we're
> > > around parity again even with pvops.
> >
> > Page faults themselves? Which path was that from?
>
> Yes. file_update_time.
FWIW, I'm not sure that this optimization is valid. We might eventually
want to go for "don't allow any new writers, remount r/o when existing
ones expire" functionality, so nested mnt_want_write() might eventually
be allowed to fail.
--
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