[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160201174526.GA3696@two.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:45:26 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] vfs: Enable list batching for the superblock's
 inode list
> I'm wondering, why are inode_sb_list_add()/del() even called for a presumably 
> reasonably well cached benchmark running on a system with enough RAM? Are these 
> perhaps thousands of temporary files, already deleted, and released when all the 
> file descriptors are closed as part of sys_exit()?
> 
> If that's the case then I suspect an even bigger win would be not just to batch 
> the (sb-)global list fiddling, but to potentially turn the sb list into a 
> percpu_alloc() managed set of per CPU lists? It's a bigger change, but it could 
We had such a patch in the lock elision patchkit (It avoided a lot
of cache line bouncing leading to aborts)
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/ak/linux-misc.git/commit/?h=hle315/combined&id=f1cf9e715a40f44086662ae3b29f123cf059cbf4
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
