[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch V3] percpu_counter: scalability works
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 15:44 +0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le lundi 16 mai 2011 à 15:15 +0800, Shaohua Li a écrit :
> > I can, but you can't prevent me to optimize percpu_counter.
> >
> Well, I have the right to say you're wrong.
sure, but please give a reason.

> Your last patch is not good, sorry.
> Please take the time to read it
> again and fix obvious problems.
what kind of obvious problems?

> And also give us numbers if one process
> does the mmap()/munmap() loop, before and after your patch.
I did a stress test with one thread

while {
the loop do 10000000 times.
in _add fast path (no locking hold):
before my patch:
real 0m0.133s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.124s
real 0m0.129s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.120s
the difference is variation.

in _add slow path (locking hold):
before my patch:
real 0m0.374s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.372s
real 0m0.245s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.020s

My patch actually makes _add faster, because we removed spin_lock.

> A percpu_counter is already a beast as is, you're suggesting to double
> its size, for a pathological case.
> Its absolutely not clear to me why vm_committed_as is using the default
> percpu_counter_batch.
> By the way could you make sure percpu_counter_batch has the right value
> on your 24 cpus machine ?
> Your 128Mbyte mmap threshold sounds like percpu_counter_batch=32 instead
> of 48
let's not argue the batch size anymore. If we can make percpu_counter
faster, why we don't (even your patch mentioned this).


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-16 10:37    [W:0.093 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site