[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110618080818.GA10351@elte.hu>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 10:08:18 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>,
"Shi, Alex" <alex.shi@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: REGRESSION: Performance regressions from switching
anon_vma->lock to mutex
* Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 09:46:00AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:28 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> > >
> > > Something like so? Compiles and runs the benchmark in question.
> >
> > Oh, and can you do this with a commit log and sign-off, and I'll put
> > it in my "anon_vma-locking" branch that I have. I'm not going to
> > actually merge that branch into mainline until I've seen a few more
> > acks or more testing by Tim.
> >
> > But if Tim's numbers hold up (-32% to +15% performance by just the
> > first one, and +15% isn't actually an improvement since tmpfs
> > read-ahead should have gotten us to +66%), I think we have to do this
> > just to avoid the performance regression.
>
> You could also add the mutex "optimize caching protocol"
> patch I posted earlier to that branch.
>
> It didn't actually improve Tim's throughput number, but it made the
> CPU consumption of the mutex go down.
Why have you ignored the negative feedback for that patch:
http://marc.info/?i=20110617190705.GA26824@elte.hu
and why have you resent this patch without addressing that feedback?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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