lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.5: push BKL out of llseek
From
Date
On Tue, 2002-01-29 at 21:21, Dave Jones wrote:

> did you benchmark with anything other than dbench ?

No, and I really don't want to hear how dbench is a terrible benchmark.
I didn't craft the patch around dbench and I think, here at least,
dbench is an OK benchmark. I ran it numerous times over multiple client
loads.

I think its clear there won't be a negative impact, because:

- acquiring the inode semaphore isn't any heavier (in the acquire
case) than the BKL

- the lock contention on each inode semaphore is relatively
zero

- besides just scaling badly with the using a global lock against
all inodes, we use the BKL which in such workloads is already
highly contested.

That said, I did do some lock profiling and latency tests. Contention
was near-zero, but I only did 2-way testing. Under the preemptible
kernel, while running dbench, scheduling latency improved 8.9%.

Robert Love

-
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 13:15    [W:1.641 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site