[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH -v4][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 09:50 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Chris Mason wrote:
> >
> > So far I haven't found any btrfs benchmarks where this is slower than
> > mutexes without any spinning. But, it isn't quite as fast as the btrfs
> > spin.
> Quite frankly, from our history with ext3 and other filesystems, using a
> mutex in the filesystem is generally the wrong thing to do anyway.
> Are you sure you can't just use a spinlock, and just release it over IO?
> The "have to do IO or extend the btree" case is usually pretty damn clear.
> Because it really sounds like you're lock-limited, and you should just try
> to clean it up. A pure "just spinlock" in the hotpath is always going to
> be better.

There are definitely ways I can improve performance for contention in
the hot btree nodes, and I think it would be a mistake to tune the
generic adaptive locks just for my current code.

But, it isn't a bad test case to compare the spin with the new patch and
with the plain mutex. If the adaptive code gets in, I think it would be
best for me to drop the spin.

Either way there's more work to be done in the btrfs locking code.


 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-07 19:03    [W:0.219 / U:1.300 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site