Robert Love wrote:
>
> @@ -84,9 +84,9 @@
> fn = default_llseek;
> if (file->f_op && file->f_op->llseek)
> fn = file->f_op->llseek;
> - lock_kernel();
> + down(&file->f_dentry->d_inode->i_sem);
> retval = fn(file, offset, origin);
> - unlock_kernel();
> + up(&file->f_dentry->d_inode->i_sem);
> return retval;
> }
Just a little word of caution here. Remember the
apache-flock-synchronisation fiasco, where removal
of the BKL halved Apache throughput on 8-way x86.
This was because the BKL removal turned serialisation
on a quick codepath from a spinlock into a schedule().
So... I'd suggest that changes such as this should be
benchmarked in isolation; otherwise we end up spending
quite some time hunting down mysterious reports of
performance regression, and having to rethink stuff.
And llseek is *fast*. If we're seeing significant
lock contention in there then adding a schedule() is
likely to turn Anton into one unhappy dbencher.
-
-
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 Jan 31 2002 - 21:01:11 EST