[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1207290107460.29910@file.rdu.redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 01:13:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, dm-devel@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
lwoodman@...hat.com, "Alasdair G. Kergon" <agk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 2/3] Introduce percpu rw semaphores
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-07-28 at 12:41 -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > Introduce percpu rw semaphores
> >
> > When many CPUs are locking a rw semaphore for read concurrently, cache
> > line bouncing occurs. When a CPU acquires rw semaphore for read, the
> > CPU writes to the cache line holding the semaphore. Consequently, the
> > cache line is being moved between CPUs and this slows down semaphore
> > acquisition.
> >
> > This patch introduces new percpu rw semaphores. They are functionally
> > identical to existing rw semaphores, but locking the percpu rw semaphore
> > for read is faster and locking for write is slower.
> >
> > The percpu rw semaphore is implemented as a percpu array of rw
> > semaphores, each semaphore for one CPU. When some thread needs to lock
> > the semaphore for read, only semaphore on the current CPU is locked for
> > read. When some thread needs to lock the semaphore for write, semaphores
> > for all CPUs are locked for write. This avoids cache line bouncing.
> >
> > Note that the thread that is locking percpu rw semaphore may be
> > rescheduled, it doesn't cause bug, but cache line bouncing occurs in
> > this case.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
>
> I am curious to see how this performs with 4096 cpus ?
Each cpu should have its own rw semaphore in its cache, so I don't see a
problem there.
When you change block size, all 4096 rw semaphores are locked for write,
but changing block size is not a performance sensitive operation.
> Really you shouldnt use rwlock in a path if this might hurt performance.
>
> RCU is probably a better answer.
RCU is meaningless here. RCU allows lockless dereference of a pointer.
Here the problem is not pointer dereference, the problem is that integer
bd_block_size may change.
> (bdev->bd_block_size should be read exactly once )
Rewrite all direct and non-direct io code so that it reads block size just
once ...
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