lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Locking comment on shrink_caches()
Date
From: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@zip.com.au>
> > John Hawkes from SGI had published some AIM7 numbers that showed
> > pagecache_lock to be a bottleneck above 4 processors. At 32
processors,
> > half the CPU cycles were spent on waiting for pagecache_lock. The
> > thread is at -
> >
> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=lse-tech&m=98459051027582&w=2
> >
>
> That's NUMA hardware. The per-hashqueue locking change made
> a big improvement on that hardware. But when it was used on
> Intel hardware it made no measurable difference at all.

More specifically, that was on SGI Origin2000 32p mips64 ccNUMA
hardware. The pagecache_lock bottleneck is substantially less on SGI
Itanium ccNUMA hardware running those AIM7 workloads. I'm seeing
moderately significant contention on the Big Kernel Lock, mostly from
sys_lseek() and ext2_get_block().

John Hawkes
hawkes@sgi.com


-
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 13:03    [W:0.049 / U:0.876 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site