[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] block: strip out locking optimization in put_io_context()
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Tejun Heo <> wrote:
> * What exactly is the test and what do you measure?  What does "12%
>  regression" mean?  Is it wallclock time or CPU time?  If it's CPU
>  time, does systime increase dominate the regression?

Shaohua, it might be interesting to see a profile of the bad case.

Now, quite often these kinds of things don't show anything at all -
it's just due to cache issues and there's no obvious "we hold spinlock
X for 15 seconds total". But if it's actual lock contention rather
than just "more scheduling of worker threads", it should show up in
the profile quite clearly.

That said, I do think the RCU approach is the right one. The whole
delayed deallocation (and the replacement patch with rwlocks) really
smells like "badly done RCU-like behavior" to me.

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: 2012-02-09 19:11    [W:0.140 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site