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    [W:0.023 / U:0.200 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site