[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Locking comment on shrink_caches()
Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> In article <> David S. Miller wrote:
> > From: Rik van Riel <>
> > Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 17:24:21 -0300 (BRST)
> >
> > Or were you measuring loads which are mostly read-only ?
> > When Kanoj Sarcar was back at SGI testing 32 processor Origin
> > MIPS systems, pagecache_lock was at the top.
> 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 -

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.

Sorry, but the patch adds compexity and unless a significant
throughput benefit can be demonstrated on less exotic hardware,
why use it?

Here are kumon's test results from March, with and without
the hashed lock patch:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Lse-tech] AIM7 scaling, pagecache_lock, multiqueue scheduler]
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 18:03:55 +0900
To: Andrew Morton <>
CC:,,John Hawkes <>,
References: <>,<><200103150234.LAA28075@asami.proc><>

OK, the followings are a result of our brief measurement with WebBench
(mindcraft type) of 2.4.2 and 2.4.2+pcl .

Workload: WebBench 3.0 (static get)
Machine: Profusion 8way 550MHz/1MB cache 1GB mem.
obtained from RedHat.
Clients: 32 clients each has 2 requesting threads.

The following number is Request per sec.

242 242+pcl ratio
1SMP 1,603 1,584 0.99
2(1+1)SMP 2,443 2,437 1.00
4(1+3)SMP 4,420 4,426 1.00
8(4+4)SMP 5,381 5,400 1.00

#No idle time observed in the 1 to 4 SMP runs.
#Only 8 SMP cases shows cpu-idle time, but it is about 2.1-2.8% of the
#total CPU time.

Note: The load of two buses of Profusion system isn't balance, because
the number of CPUs on each bus is unbalance.

From the above brief test, (+pcl) patch doens't show the measurable
performance gain.

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: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.043 / U:5.216 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site