Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.5: push BKL out of llseek | From | Robert Love <> | Date | 29 Jan 2002 21:20:10 -0500 |
| |
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.
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/
| |