lockmeter instrumentation shows that during a 60-second write to four
disks the kernel takes 12,000,000 spinlocks. It wrote 1,000,000 pages.
The kernel is taking a spinlock once per 10,000 instructions. That
seems to be quite a lot. And it's not counting the 7,000,000 rwlocks.
And lockmeter doesn't count the buslocked operations which arise from
semaphores or bitops.
3,000,000 of those spinlocks are pagemap_lru_lock. The patches which
I'm working on against that lock reduce its count to 90,000.
Of the remaining 9,000,000 spinlockings, 3,000,000 are in
__find_get_block (getblk).
This patch removes the locking from __find_get_blocks(), so we're down
to 6,000,000.
The locking in __find_get_block() is only needed to protect against
invalidate_bh_lrus(), which is called at unmount and ioctl(BLKFLSBUF).
Remove the spinlocks and use a cross-CPU call to perform the
invalidate. Protect against that with a local_irq_disable() in the
fastpath.
This assumes that local_irq_disable() is cheaper than a lock.
This code assumes that local_irq_save() provides protection from an
smp_call_function() handler. This is OK in 2.5 but is not supported in
2.4. Because sparc32 IPIs are not blocked by local_irq_disable() in
2.4.
On uniprocessor we don't need any of this locking - a preempt_disable()
in the invalidate path is sufficient.
The code assumes that find_get_block(), getblk() and bread() are never
called with interrupts disabled. There is an x86 bugcheck for that.
If it trips I'll need to fix the caller or replace local_irq_disable()
with local_irq_save().
The remaining piggy spinlocks are:
rmqueue(): 1,000,000
One per page. I'll be doing gang allocation for readahead, but
for write(2) and anonymous pagefaults we'll need a per-cpu page
buffer. I have a patch for that but it's hacky.
__free_pages_ok(): 1,000,000
gang-free is close, and will reduce this to 70,000-odd.
try_to_free_buffers(): 1,000,000
create_empty_buffers(): 1,000,000
That's life with buffers. A delayed-allocate ext2 would bring
these to zero.
kmem_cache_reap: 270,000
This one is interesting not because of the lock, but because of
the semaphore. The rwlock inside cache_chain_sem is 25% contended.
What's happening is that each caller into page reclaim runs
kmem_cache_reap: take the semaphore, futz around doing nothing for
a while, then release the sempahore and go do page reclaim.
This has the effect of serialising entry into the page reclaim
and accidentally decreases contention on pagemap_lru_lock.
buffer.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
1 files changed, 48 insertions, 27 deletions
--- 2.5.30/fs/buffer.c~buffer-lru-lock Fri Aug 9 17:36:45 2002
+++ 2.5.30-akpm/fs/buffer.c Fri Aug 9 17:36:45 2002
@@ -1277,15 +1277,32 @@ __bread_slow(struct block_device *bdev,
*
* This is a transparent caching front-end to sb_bread(), sb_getblk() and
* sb_find_get_block().
+ *
+ * The LRUs themselves only need locking against invalidate_bh_lrus. We use
+ * a local interrupt disable for that.
*/
-#define BH_LRU_SIZE 7
+#define BH_LRU_SIZE 8
static struct bh_lru {
- spinlock_t lock;
struct buffer_head *bhs[BH_LRU_SIZE];
} ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp bh_lrus[NR_CPUS];
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+#define bh_lru_lock() local_irq_disable()
+#define bh_lru_unlock() local_irq_enable()
+#else
+#define bh_lru_lock() preempt_disable()
+#define bh_lru_unlock() preempt_enable()
+#endif
+
+static inline void check_irqs_on(void)
+{
+#ifdef irqs_disabled
+ BUG_ON(irqs_disabled());
+#endif
+}
+
/*
* The LRU management algorithm is dopey-but-simple. Sorry.
*/
@@ -1297,8 +1314,9 @@ static void bh_lru_install(struct buffer
if (bh == NULL)
return;
- lru = &bh_lrus[get_cpu()];
- spin_lock(&lru->lock);
+ check_irqs_on();
+ bh_lru_lock();
+ lru = &bh_lrus[smp_processor_id()];
if (lru->bhs[0] != bh) {
struct buffer_head *bhs[BH_LRU_SIZE];
int in;
@@ -1324,8 +1342,7 @@ static void bh_lru_install(struct buffer
bhs[out++] = NULL;
memcpy(lru->bhs, bhs, sizeof(bhs));
}
- spin_unlock(&lru->lock);
- put_cpu();
+ bh_lru_unlock();
if (evictee) {
touch_buffer(evictee);
@@ -1340,8 +1357,9 @@ lookup_bh(struct block_device *bdev, sec
struct bh_lru *lru;
int i;
- lru = &bh_lrus[get_cpu()];
- spin_lock(&lru->lock);
+ check_irqs_on();
+ bh_lru_lock();
+ lru = &bh_lrus[smp_processor_id()];
for (i = 0; i < BH_LRU_SIZE; i++) {
struct buffer_head *bh = lru->bhs[i];
@@ -1359,8 +1377,7 @@ lookup_bh(struct block_device *bdev, sec
break;
}
}
- spin_unlock(&lru->lock);
- put_cpu();
+ bh_lru_unlock();
return ret;
}
@@ -1407,26 +1424,33 @@ __bread(struct block_device *bdev, secto
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__bread);
/*
- * This is called rarely - at unmount.
+ * invalidate_bh_lrus() is called rarely - at unmount. Because it is only for
+ * unmount it only needs to ensure that all buffers from the target device are
+ * invalidated on return and it doesn't need to worry about new buffers from
+ * that device being added - the unmount code has to prevent that.
*/
-static void invalidate_bh_lrus(void)
+static void invalidate_bh_lru(void *arg)
{
- int cpu_idx;
+ const int cpu = get_cpu();
+ int i;
- for (cpu_idx = 0; cpu_idx < NR_CPUS; cpu_idx++)
- spin_lock(&bh_lrus[cpu_idx].lock);
- for (cpu_idx = 0; cpu_idx < NR_CPUS; cpu_idx++) {
- int i;
-
- for (i = 0; i < BH_LRU_SIZE; i++) {
- brelse(bh_lrus[cpu_idx].bhs[i]);
- bh_lrus[cpu_idx].bhs[i] = NULL;
- }
+ for (i = 0; i < BH_LRU_SIZE; i++) {
+ brelse(bh_lrus[cpu].bhs[i]);
+ bh_lrus[cpu].bhs[i] = NULL;
}
- for (cpu_idx = 0; cpu_idx < NR_CPUS; cpu_idx++)
- spin_unlock(&bh_lrus[cpu_idx].lock);
+ put_cpu();
+}
+
+static void invalidate_bh_lrus(void)
+{
+ preempt_disable();
+ invalidate_bh_lru(NULL);
+ smp_call_function(invalidate_bh_lru, NULL, 1, 1);
+ preempt_enable();
}
+
+
void set_bh_page(struct buffer_head *bh,
struct page *page, unsigned long offset)
{
@@ -2560,9 +2584,6 @@ static void bh_mempool_free(void *elemen
void __init buffer_init(void)
{
int i;
-
- for (i = 0; i < NR_CPUS; i++)
- spin_lock_init(&bh_lrus[i].lock);
bh_cachep = kmem_cache_create("buffer_head",
sizeof(struct buffer_head), 0,
.
-
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 : Thu Aug 15 2002 - 22:00:21 EST