On Fri, 2002-02-08 at 14:21, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Had anyone actually seen lseek() vs. lseek() contention prior to the
> switch to ->i_sem-based variant?
Yes, I did, even on my 2-way.
Additionally, when I posted the remove-bkl-llseek patch, someone from
SGI noted that on a 24-processor NUMA IA-64 machine, _50%_ of machine
time was spent spinning on the BKL in llseek-intense operations.
The bkl is not held for a long time, but it is acquired often, and there
are definitely workloads that show a big hit with the BKL in there.
Robert Love
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 21:00:21 EST