Re: [patch 0/3] j_state_lock, j_list_lock, remove-bitlocks

[Andrew Morton]

Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > ooh, I'd rather not.  I spent an intense three days removing all the
>  > sleeping locks from ext3 (and three months debugging the result). 
>  > Ended up gaining 1000% on 16-way.
>  > 
>  > Putting them back in will really hurt the SMP performance.
> 
>  ah. Yeah. Sniff.
> 
>  if we gain 1000% on a 16-way then there's something really wrong about
>  semaphores (or scheduling) though. A semaphore is almost a spinlock, in
>  the uncontended case - and even under contention we really (should) just
>  spend the cycles that we'd spend spinning. There will be some
>  intermediate contention level where semaphores hurt, but 1000% sounds
>  truly excessive.

I forget how much of the 1000% came from that, but it was quite a lot.

Removing the BKL was the first step.  That took the context switch rate
under high load from ~10,000/sec up to ~300,000/sec.  Because the first
thing a CPU hit on entry to the fs was then a semaphore.  Performance rather
took a dive.

Of course the locks also became much finer-grained, so the contention
opportunities lessened.  But j_list_lock and j_state_lock have fs-wide
scope, so I'd expect the context switch rate to go up quite a lot again.

The hold times are short, and a context switch hurts rather ore than a quick
spin.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/