Re: [PATCH] 2.5: push BKL out of llseek

From: Robert Love (rml@tech9.net)
Date: Tue Jan 29 2002 - 21:37:57 EST


On Tue, 2002-01-29 at 21:21, Dave Jones wrote:

> did you benchmark with anything other than dbench ?

No, and I really don't want to hear how dbench is a terrible benchmark.
I didn't craft the patch around dbench and I think, here at least,
dbench is an OK benchmark. I ran it numerous times over multiple client
loads.

I think its clear there won't be a negative impact, because:

- acquiring the inode semaphore isn't any heavier (in the acquire
  case) than the BKL

- the lock contention on each inode semaphore is relatively
  zero

- besides just scaling badly with the using a global lock against
  all inodes, we use the BKL which in such workloads is already
  highly contested.

That said, I did do some lock profiling and latency tests. Contention
was near-zero, but I only did 2-way testing. Under the preemptible
kernel, while running dbench, scheduling latency improved 8.9%.

        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 : Thu Jan 31 2002 - 21:01:12 EST