[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150906233226.GO26895@dastard>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 09:32:26 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [4.2, Regression] Queued spinlocks cause major XFS performance
regression
On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 05:25:23PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Something like so...
>
> ---
> Subject: locking: Fix virt test-and-set lock implementation
>
> Dave ran into horrible performance on a VM without PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
> set and Linus noted that the test-and-set implementation was retarded.
>
> One should spin on the variable with a load, not a rmw.
>
> While there, remove the queued from the name, as the lock isn't queued
> at all, but a simple test-and-set.
>
> Reported-by: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
> Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
FSUse% Count Size Files/sec App Overhead
0 1600000 0 319511.8 9398733
0 3200000 0 301517.9 9516230
0 4800000 0 300357.6 9676651
0 6400000 0 282167.8 11513255
Looks OK.
Tested-by: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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