[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110511023425.2d23a38a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 02:34:25 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tj@...nel.org,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, cl@...ux.com, npiggin@...nel.dk
Subject: Re: [patch v2 4/5] percpu_counter: use atomic64 for counter in SMP
On Wed, 11 May 2011 16:10:16 +0800 Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com> wrote:
> The percpu_counter global lock is only used to protect updating fbc->count after
> we use lglock to protect percpu data. Uses atomic64 for percpu_counter, because
> it is cheaper than spinlock. This doesn't slow fast path (percpu_counter_read).
> atomic64_read equals to read fbc->count for 64-bit system, or equals to
> spin_lock-read-spin_unlock for 32-bit system.
>
> Note, originally the percpu_counter_read for 32-bit system doesn't hold
> spin_lock, but that is buggy and might cause very wrong value accessed.
> This patch fixes the issue.
>
> This can also improve some workloads with percpu_counter->lock heavily
> contented. For example, vm_committed_as sometimes causes the contention.
> We should tune the batch count, but if we can make percpu_counter better,
> why not? In a 24 CPUs system and 24 processes, each runs:
> while (1) {
> mmap(128M);
> munmap(128M);
> }
> we then measure how many loops each process can take:
> orig: 1226976
> patched: 6727264
> The atomic method gives 5x~6x faster.
How much slower did percpu_counter_sum() become?
--
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