[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] percpu_counter: Put a reasonable upper bound on percpu_counter_batch

On Sep 5, 2011, at 11:48 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 09:46:09PM +1000, Anton Blanchard wrote:
>> When testing on a 1024 thread ppc64 box I noticed a large amount of
>> CPU time in ext4 code.
>> ext4_has_free_blocks has a fast path to avoid summing every free and
>> dirty block per cpu counter, but only if the global count shows more
>> free blocks than the maximum amount that could be stored in all the
>> per cpu counters.
>> Since percpu_counter_batch scales with num_online_cpus() and the maximum
>> amount in all per cpu counters is percpu_counter_batch * num_online_cpus(),
>> this breakpoint grows at O(n^2).
>> This issue will also hit with users of percpu_counter_compare which
>> does a similar thing for one percpu counter.
>> I chose to cap percpu_counter_batch at 1024 as a conservative first
>> step, but we may want to reduce it further based on further benchmarking.
>> Signed-off-by: Anton Blanchard <>
> Applied to percpu/for-3.2.

Um, this was an ext4 patch and I pointed out it could cause problems. (Specifically, data loss…)

- Ted

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: 2011-09-06 15:33    [W:0.066 / U:4.360 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site