[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111222083952.GN23916@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:39:52 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
mc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>, david@...morbit.com,
Maciej Rutecki <maciej.rutecki@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] VFS: br_write_lock locks on possible CPUs other than
online CPUs
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 09:17:57AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> The costly operations here are the atomics and nothing really changes
> for them. So I don't expect any measurable difference.
>
> I actually have an idea to remove them for the common case, but not in
> that patchkit or cycle :)
>
> I can run a ftrace if you want, but I expect any difference to be below
> the measurement inaccuracy.
What I'm concerned with is not the cost of extra dereference per se; it's
more about cacheline bouncing - note that with this fix in place you'll
end up with spinlock in the same cacheline as the pointer to per-cpu stuff.
Hell knows; it might not matter at all, since we take it only for
br_write_lock() (and definitely rare CPU up/down), but still, I'd like to
see the data. In any case, that's not -stable material. The race fix,
OTOH, is...
--
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