lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]   [less markup]   [headers]   [forward]  
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 29 Jan 2002 18:20:27 -0800
FromAndrew Morton <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.5: push BKL out of llseek
Robert Love wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2002-01-29 at 20:26, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > Just a little word of caution here.  Remember the
> > apache-flock-synchronisation fiasco, where removal
> > of the BKL halved Apache throughput on 8-way x86.
> >
> > This was because the BKL removal turned serialisation
> > on a quick codepath from a spinlock into a schedule().
> 
> I feared this too, but eventually I decided it was worth it and
> benchmarks backed that up.  If nothing else this is yet-another-excuse
> for locks that can spin-then-sleep.
> 
> I posted dbench results, which show a positive gain even on 2-way for
> multiple client loads.
> 

But dbench does lots of seeking against *different* files,
so removal of a shared lock will help there.

But an application where multiple CPUs lseek and write
the *same* file could take a hit....
(And where's the locking for (non-atomic) i_size in sys_stat())


-
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:15    [W:0.363 / U:0.730 seconds]
©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans