[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5588590A.7080001@sr71.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 11:50:50 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jack@...e.cz, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
eparis@...hat.com, john@...nmccutchan.com, rlove@...ve.org,
tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] fs: optimize inotify/fsnotify code for unwatched
files
On 06/22/2015 08:11 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> But if Dave is willing to test it, I would be happy to send along
> a fast-readers patch, easy to do.
I'm always willing to test, but the cost of the srcu_read_lock() barrier
shows up even on my 2-year-old "Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3320M CPU @
2.60GHz" laptop. The numbers I shared in this thread are on a newer CPU
than that, so I'm fairly confident this will show up on just about any
(big core) Intel CPU newer than SandyBridge.
The tests I've been running are:
https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale
with two new 1-byte read/write tests copied in to "tests/":
https://www.sr71.net/~dave/intel/read1byte.c
https://www.sr71.net/~dave/intel/write1byte.c
The one-byte thing is silly but it does help isolate the kernel's
overhead from what the app is doing.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists