[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzVmb_DfPPDyeON9X2KAii79g=NszPi+k9jrNLdQS7+4g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:07:35 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Knut Petersen <Knut_Petersen@...nline.de>, mroos@...ux.ee
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: strip out locking optimization in put_io_context()
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * What exactly is the test and what do you measure? What does "12%
> regression" mean? Is it wallclock time or CPU time? If it's CPU
> time, does systime increase dominate the regression?
Shaohua, it might be interesting to see a profile of the bad case.
Now, quite often these kinds of things don't show anything at all -
it's just due to cache issues and there's no obvious "we hold spinlock
X for 15 seconds total". But if it's actual lock contention rather
than just "more scheduling of worker threads", it should show up in
the profile quite clearly.
That said, I do think the RCU approach is the right one. The whole
delayed deallocation (and the replacement patch with rwlocks) really
smells like "badly done RCU-like behavior" to me.
Linus
--
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