[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171020065536.GA11101@lst.de>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 08:55:36 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>,
Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-4.14] xfs: fix AIM7 regression
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 03:44:31PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > The code looks fine, but this seems really strange. If the trylock
> > > fails, then wouldn't the blocking lock have slept anyways if done
> > > initially? Is there any more background info available on this, or
> > > perhaps a theory on why there is such a significant regression..?
> >
> > No, unfortunately I don't have a theory, but I agree it is odd
> > behavior in the rwsem code.
>
> <shrug> I want to know a little more about why there's a performance hit
> in the down_read_trylock -> down_read case. Are we getting penalized
> for that? Is it some weird interaction with lockdep?
I don't think the test bot did run with lockdep. But feel free to take
a look at the mail thread titled
[lkp-robot] [fs] 91f9943e1c: aim7.jobs-per-min -26.6% regression
on lkml. Note that synthetic benchmarks on XFS always saw weird
effects from rwsem details. I remember that a few years ago I had
to back to the mainline patch to move the rwsem fastpath out of line
because thay caused a major performance regressions on CIFS file
serving benchmarks on a very low end ARM NAS box.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists