lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 2/2] fix file counting
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > > I am using a patch that seems sligthly better : It removes the filp_count_lock
> > > as yours but introduces a percpu variable, and a lazy nr_files . (Its value
> > > can be off with a delta of +/- 16*num_possible_cpus()
> >
> > Yes, I think that is better.
>
> I agree that Eric's approach likely improves performance on large systems
> due to decreased cache thrashing. However, the real problem is getting
> both good throughput and good latency in RCU callback processing, given
> Lee Revell's latency testing results. Once we get that in hand, then
> we should consider Eric's approach.

Dipankar's patch risks worsening large-SMP scalability, doesn't it?
Putting an atomic op into the file_free path?

And afaict it fixes up the skew in the nr_files accounting but we're still
exposed to the risk of large amounts of memory getting chewed up due to RCU
latencies?

(And it forgot to initialise the atomic_t)

(And has a couple of suspicious-looking module exports. We don't support
CONFIG_PROC_FS=m).

-
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: 2006-01-28 00:29    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans