lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 0/8] Deferred dput() and iput() -- reducing lock contention
Andi Kleen wrote:
> Mike Waychison <mikew@google.com> writes:
>
>> livelock on dcache_lock/inode_lock (specifically in atomic_dec_and_lock())
>
> I'm not sure how something can livelock in atomic_dec_and_lock which
> doesn't take a spinlock itself? Are you saying you run into NUMA memory
> unfairness here? Or did I misparse you?

By atomic_dec_and_lock, I really meant to say _atomic_dec_and_lock().
It takes the spinlock if the cmpxchg hidden inside atomic_dec_unless fails.

There are likely NUMA unfairness issues at play, but it's not the main
worry at this point.

>
>> This patchset is an attempt to try and reduce the locking overheads associated
>> with final dput() and final iput(). This is done by batching dentries and
>> inodes into per-process queues and processing them in 'parallel' to consolidate
>> some of the locking.
>
> I was wondering what this does to the latencies when dput/iput
> is only done for very objects. Does it increase costs then
> significantly?

very objects?

>
> As a high level comment it seems like a lot of work to work
> around global locks, like the inode_lock, where it might be better to
> just split the lock up? Mind you I don't have a clear proposal
> how to do that, but surely it's doable somehow.
>

Perhaps.. the only plausible way I can think this would be doable would
be to rework the global resources (like the global inode_unused LRU list
and deal with inode state transitions), but even then, some sort of
consistency needs to happen at the super_block level, which means the
smallest I can see the lock becoming would be per-super_block, which
doesn't solve the problem afaict.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-21 07:23    [W:0.141 / U:0.380 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site