[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Lockless page cache test results
    Jens Axboe <> wrote:
    > On Wed, Apr 26 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > Jens Axboe <> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Running a splice benchmark on a 4-way IPF box, I decided to give the
    > > > lockless page cache patches from Nick a spin. I've attached the results
    > > > as a png, it pretty much speaks for itself.
    > >
    > > It does.
    > >
    > > What does the test do?
    > >
    > > In particular, does it cause the kernel to take tree_lock once per
    > > page, or once per batch-of-pages?
    > Once per page, it's basically exercising the generic_file_splice_read()
    > path. Basically X number of "clients" open the same file, and fill those
    > pages into a pipe using splice. The output end of the pipe is then
    > spliced to /dev/null to toss it away again.

    OK. That doesn't sound like something which a real application is likely
    to do ;)

    > The top of the 4-client
    > vanilla run profile looks like this:
    > samples % symbol name
    > 65328 47.8972 find_get_page
    > Basically the machine is fully pegged, about 7% idle time.

    Most of the time an acquisition of tree_lock is associated with a disk
    read, or a page-size memset, or a page-size memcpy. And often an
    acquisition of tree_lock is associated with multiple pages, not just a
    single page.

    So although the graph looks good, I wouldn't view this as a super-strong
    argument in favour of lockless pagecache.

    > We can speedup the lookups with find_get_pages(). The test does 64k max,
    > so with luck we should be able to pull 16 pages in at the time. I'll try
    > and run such a test.


    > But boy I wish find_get_pages_contig() was there
    > for that. I think I'd prefer adding that instead of coding that logic in
    > splice, it can get a little tricky.

    I guess it'd make sense - we haven't had a need for such a thing before.

    umm, something like...

    unsigned find_get_pages_contig(struct address_space *mapping, pgoff_t start,
    unsigned int nr_pages, struct page **pages)
    unsigned int i;
    unsigned int ret;
    pgoff_t index = start;

    ret = radix_tree_gang_lookup(&mapping->page_tree,
    (void **)pages, start, nr_pages);
    for (i = 0; i < ret; i++) {
    if (pages[i]->mapping == NULL || pages[i]->index != index)
    return i;

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-04-26 20:15    [W:0.023 / U:30.856 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site