[<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