On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 04:17:10PM +0000, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > Isn't increased hold time _good_ on NUMA-Q? I thought that the
> > really costy operation was bouncing the lock around the interconnect,
> > not holding it.
> Depends what you get it return. The object of fastwalk was to stop the
> cacheline bouncing on all the individual dentry counters, at the cost
> of increased dcache_lock hold times. It's a tradeoff ... and in this
> instance it wins. In general, long lock hold times are bad.
I don't think individual dentry counters are as much a problem as
acquisition of dcache_lock for every path component lookup as done
by the earlier path walking algorithm. The big deal with fastwalk
is that it decreases the number of acquisitions of dcache_lock
for a webserver workload by 70% on an 8-CPU machine. That is avoiding
a lot of possible cacheline bouncing of dcache_lock.
> > In any case, we all know often acquired global locks are a bad idea
> > on a 32-way, and should be avoided like the plague. I just wish we
> > had a dcache solution that didn't even need locks as much... :)
> Well, avoiding data corruption is a preferable goal too. The point of
> RCU is not to have to take a lock for the common read case. I'd expect
> good results from it on the NUMA machines - never been benchmarked, as
> far as I recall.
You can see that in wli's dbench 512 results on his NUMA box.
-- Dipankar Sarma <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://lse.sourceforge.net Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Lab, Bangalore, India. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com 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 : Mon Sep 23 2002 - 22:00:31 EST