[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090425033503.GV8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 04:35:03 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: npiggin@...e.de
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 04/27] fs: introduce mnt_clone_write
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 11:20:24AM +1000, npiggin@...e.de wrote:
> This patch speeds up lmbench lat_mmap test by about another 2% after the
> first patch.
>
> Before:
> avg = 462.286
> std = 5.46106
>
> After:
> avg = 453.12
> std = 9.58257
>
> (50 runs of each, stddev gives a reasonable confidence)
>
> It does this by introducing mnt_clone_write, which avoids some heavyweight
> operations of mnt_want_write if called on a vfsmount which we know already
> has a write count; and mnt_want_write_file, which can call mnt_clone_write
> if the file is open for write.
>
> After these two patches, mnt_want_write and mnt_drop_write go from 7% on
> the profile down to 1.3% (including mnt_clone_write).
NAK in this form; nested mnt_want_write() *CAN* fail (note the check for
superblock itself being r/o). Make you mnt_clone_write() returning int
and doing that superblock check, and I'm OK with it.
--
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