lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCHv4 17/17] writeback: lessen sync_supers wakeup count
From
Date
On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 13:29 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> void mark_sb_dirty(struct super_block *sb)
> {
> sb->s_dirty = 1;
>
> if (!supers_timer_armed) {
> spin_lock(&supers_timer_lock);
> if (!supers_timer_armed) {
> bdi_arm_supers_timer();
> supers_timer_armed = 1;
> }
> } else if (supers_timer_armed == -1)
> spin_lock(&supers_timer_lock);
> if (supers_timer_armed == -1)
> supers_timer_armed = 1;
> spin_unlock(&supers_timer_lock);
> }
> }
>
> I didn't try very hard there, but you get the idea: examine the state
> before taking that expensive global spinlock, so we only end up taking
> the lock once per five seconds, rather than once per possible
> superblock dirtying. That's like a six-orders-of-magnitude reduction
> in locking frequency, which is worth putting some effort into.

Andrew, thanks for review!

I just did not consider spinlock to be expensive because I thought that
marking superblock as dirty is a relatively rare operation. And my small
experiments kind of confirmed that.

But Nick suggested a good locking scheme which uses only smp_mb() in
this thread, which I am going to stick with.

--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)

--
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: 2010-05-29 10:05    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans