lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] anobjrmap 9 priority mjb tree
On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> >> This slows down kernel compile a little, but worse, it slows down SDET
> >> by about 25% (on the 16x). I think you did something horrible to sem
> >> contention ... presumably i_shared_sem, which SDET was fighting with
> >> as it was anyway ;-(
> >>
> >> Diffprofile shows:
> >>
> >> 122626 15.7% total
> >> 44129 790.0% __down
> >> 20988 4.1% default_idle
>
> I applied Andrew's high sophisticated proprietary semtrace technology.

Thanks a lot, Martin, this seems pretty important.

So, i_shared_sem, as you supposed.

Do you still have the two profiles input to diffprofile?
I wonder if they'd have clues to help us understand it better.

Any chance of you doing the same comparison between 2.6.5-aa5
2.6.5-aa5 minus prio-tree? (Well, needn't be -aa5, whatever comes to
hand. Looks like "patch -p1 -R < prio-tree" mostly works, just some
rejects in mm/mmap.c itself, let me know if I can help out on that.)

If -aa is okay, I hope so, then it's surely some stupidity from me.

We're not at all surprised that vma linking and unlinking should take
rather longer; but the rise in __down, __wake_up, finish_task_switch
is horrifying. Or is that how it usually looks, when a semaphore is
well contended - thundering herd?

Hugh

-
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 14:02    [W:0.075 / U:1.676 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site