lkml.org 
[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
From
Date
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 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 13:15    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans