Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:33:23 +0200 | From | Nadia Derbey <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/13] Re: Scalability requirements for sysv ipc |
| |
Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 07:18 +0200, Nadia Derbey wrote: > >>Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 18:17 +0200, Nadia.Derbey@bull.net wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Here is finally the ipc ridr-based implementation I was talking about last >>>>week (see http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/4/208). >>>>I couldn't avoid much of the code duplication, but at least made things >>>>incremental. >>>> >>>>Does somebody now a test suite that exists for the idr API, that I could >>>>run on this new api? >>>> >>>>Mike, can you try to run it on your victim: I had such a hard time building >>>>this patch, that I couldn't re-run the test on my 8-core with this new >>>>version. So the last results I have are for 2.6.25-rc3-mm1. >>>> >>>>Also, I think a careful review should be done to avoid introducing yet other >>>>problems :-( >>> >>> >>>Why duplicate the whole thing, when we converted the Radix tree to be >>>RCU safe we did it in-place. Is there a reason this is not done for idr? >>> >>> >>> >> >>I did that because I wanted to go fast and try to fix the performance >>problem we have with sysV ipc's. I didn't want to introduce (yet other) >>regressions in the code that uses idr's today and that works well ;-) >>May be in the future if this rcu based api appears to be ok, we can >>replace one with the other? > > >>From what I can see the API doesn't change at all,
Well, 1 interface changes, 1 is added and another one went away:
1) for the preload part (it becomes like the radix-tree preload part):
int idr_pre_get(struct idr *, gfp_t); would become int idr_pre_get(gfp_t);
2) idr_pre_get_end() is added (same as radix_tree_preload_end()).
3) The idr_init() disappears.
You might see that other interfaces are not provided by ridr, but this is only because I've taken those that are useful for the ipc part (so should not be a problem to make the whole thing rcu safe).
> so I don't see why > you need to duplicate - either the new code works as expected or its > broken.
That's why I asked for an "IDR test suite": I wanted to test potential regressions.
> If it works its good enough for all IDR users, if its broken we > should fix it. Seems simple enough.. am I missing something obvious? >
Regards, Nadia
| |