[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 09, 2012 at 10:07:35AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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.

Yeap, if CPUs are taking more time to do stuff, it would be helpful to
obtain before and after profiles.

> 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.

Weird thing is that if it were wq, the rwlock patch should have
removed the regression. It removed the reverse locking and the wq
deferring. It does replace ioc locking with global readlock but it's
weird that that can show up as >10% regression (whatever the measure
may be). Even though kernel compiling is pretty fork/exit
> 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.

I'll probably post it in several hours and think it's gonna be pretty
well contained. I probably avoided RCU too hard in that path from the
original scary RCU usage.


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 20:27    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean