[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.5: push BKL out of llseek
On Tue, 2002-01-29 at 20:26, Andrew Morton wrote:

> Just a little word of caution here. Remember the
> apache-flock-synchronisation fiasco, where removal
> of the BKL halved Apache throughput on 8-way x86.
> This was because the BKL removal turned serialisation
> on a quick codepath from a spinlock into a schedule().

I feared this too, but eventually I decided it was worth it and
benchmarks backed that up. If nothing else this is yet-another-excuse
for locks that can spin-then-sleep.

I posted dbench results, which show a positive gain even on 2-way for
multiple client loads.

Robert Love

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 13:15    [W:0.161 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site