[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87bnwdjdoj.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 09:40:28 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale.com>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steffen Persvold <sp@...ascale.com>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>
Subject: Re: ext4 performance falloff
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> writes:
>
> What we really need is a counter where we can better estimate counts
> accumulated in the percpu part of it. As the counter approaches zero, it's
> CPU overhead will have to become that of a single locked variable but when
> the value of counter is relatively high, we want it to be fast as the
> percpu one. Possibly, each CPU could "reserve" part of the value in the
> counter (by just decrementing the total value; how large that part should
> be really needs to depend to the total value of the counter and number of
> CPUs - in this regard we really differ from classical percpu couters) and
> allocate/free using that part. If CPU cannot reserve what it is asked for
> anymore, it would go and steal from parts other CPUs have accumulated,
> returning them to global pool until it can satisfy the allocation.
That's a percpu_counter() isn't it? (or cookie jar)
The MM uses similar techniques.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
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