[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] [PATCH] Include LRU in page count
On Monday 02 September 2002 00:09, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > I'm looking at your spinlock_irq now and thinking the _irq part could
> > possibly be avoided. Can you please remind me of the motivation for this -
> > was it originally intended to address the same race we've been working on
> > here?
> scalability, mainly. If the CPU holding the lock takes an interrupt,
> all the other CPUs get to spin until the handler completes. I measured
> a 30% reducton in contention from this.
> Not a generally justifiable trick, but this is a heavily-used lock.
> All the new games in refill_inactive() are there to minimise the
> interrupt-off time.

Ick. I hope you really chopped the lock hold time into itty-bitty pieces.

Note that I changed the spin_lock in page_cache_release to a trylock, maybe
it's worth checking out the effect on contention. With a little head
scratching we might be able to get rid of the spin_lock in lru_cache_add as
well. That leaves (I think) just the two big scan loops. I've always felt
it's silly to run more than one of either at the same time anyway.

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 13:28    [W:0.129 / U:5.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site