[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1202021538570.9035@hs20-bc2-1.build.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 15:43:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: axboe@...nel.dk, "Alasdair G. Kergon" <agk@...hat.com>,
dm-devel@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] backing-dev: use synchronize_rcu_expedited instead of
synchronize_rcu
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 20:29 -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > Hi Jens
> >
> > Please would you consider taking this into the block tree? It seems to
> > speed up device deletion enormously.
> >
> > Mikulas
> >
> > ---
> >
> > backing-dev: use synchronize_rcu_expedited instead of synchronize_rcu
> >
> > synchronize_rcu sleeps several timer ticks. synchronize_rcu_expedited is
> > much faster.
> >
> > With 100Hz timer frequency, when we remove 10000 block devices with
> > "dmsetup remove_all" command, it takes 27 minutes. With this patch,
> > removing 10000 block devices takes only 15 seconds.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
> >
> > ---
> > mm/backing-dev.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-3.0-rc7-fast/mm/backing-dev.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-3.0-rc7-fast.orig/mm/backing-dev.c 2011-07-19 18:01:00.000000000 +0200
> > +++ linux-3.0-rc7-fast/mm/backing-dev.c 2011-07-19 18:01:07.000000000 +0200
> > @@ -505,7 +505,7 @@ static void bdi_remove_from_list(struct
> > list_del_rcu(&bdi->bdi_list);
> > spin_unlock_bh(&bdi_lock);
> >
> > - synchronize_rcu();
> > + synchronize_rcu_expedited();
> > }
> >
>
> Urgh, I just noticed this crap in my tree.. You realize that what you're
> effectively hammering a global sync primitive this way? Depending on
> what RCU flavour you have any SMP variant will at least do a machine
> wide IPI broadcast for every sync_rcu_exp(), some do significantly more.
>
> The much better solution would've been to batch your block-dev removals
> and use a single sync_rcu as barrier.
>
> This is not cool.
Do you have some measurable use case where the user is removing block
devices so heavily that this causes a problem?
Mikulas
--
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