lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Don't apply for write lock on tasklist_lock if parent doesn't ptrace other processes
From
Date
On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 19:34 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/23, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 11:05 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > I am not surpized perf blaims tasklist, but I am really surpized this patch
> > > adds 10% improvement...
> > I changed aim7 workfile to focus on fork/exec and other a couple of sub-cases.
> > And this behavior is clear on 8-socket machines.
>
> Thanks...
>
> > After applying my patch (although it's incorrect as there is a race with TRACEME),
> > perf shows write_lock_irq in forget_original_parent consumes less than 40% cpu time on
> > 8-socket machine.
>
> Any chance you can test the patch I sent? It should have the same effect,
> otherwise there is something interesting.
1) with my patch, we got about 13% improvement;
2) With your patch, we got about 11% improvement;

Performance is very sensitive to spinlock contention on large machines.

>
> > Is it possible to optimize it to use finer locks instead of the global tasklist_lock?
>
> Heh. We must optimize it. But it is not clear when ;)
Thanks. It's better to remove the big lock.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-07-26 07:07    [W:0.117 / U:0.932 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site