Re: [PATCH 0/5] mm: i_mmap_mutex to rwsem

[Hugh Dickins]

On Mon, 2 Jun 2014, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 13:08 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 May 2014 19:20:15 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 20:33 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > > This patchset extends the work started by Ingo Molnar in late 2012,
> > > > optimizing the anon-vma mutex lock, converting it from a exclusive mutex
> > > > to a rwsem, and sharing the lock for read-only paths when walking the
> > > > the vma-interval tree. More specifically commits 5a505085 and 4fc3f1d6.
> > > > 
> > > > The i_mmap_mutex has similar responsibilities with the anon-vma, protecting
> > > > file backed pages. Therefore we can use similar locking techniques: covert
> > > > the mutex to a rwsem and share the lock when possible.
> > > > 
> > > > With the new optimistic spinning property we have in rwsems, we no longer
> > > > take a hit in performance when using this lock, and we can therefore
> > > > safely do the conversion. Tests show no throughput regressions in aim7 or
> > > > pgbench runs, and we can see gains from sharing the lock, in disk workloads
> > > > ~+15% for over 1000 users on a 8-socket Westmere system.
> > > > 
> > > > This patchset applies on linux-next-20140522.
> > >
> > > ping? Andrew any chance of getting this in -next?
> > 
> > (top-posting repaired)
> > 
> > It was a bit late for 3.16 back on May 26, when you said "I will dig
> > deeper (probably for 3.17 now)".  So, please take another look at the
> > patch factoring and let's get this underway for -rc1.
> 
> Ok, so I meant that I'd dig deeper for the additional sharing
> opportunities (which I've found a few as Hugh correctly suggested). So
> those eventual patches could come later. 
> 
> But I see no reason for *this* patchset to be delayed, as even if it
> gets to be 3.17 material, I'd still very much want to have the same
> patch factoring I have now. I think its the correct way to handle lock
> transitioning for both correctness and bisectability.

I'd be glad to see it go into 3.16 if it works as well as advertized.
And if you're attached to your current 2/5, fine, do stick with that.
But please do a proper job on your 3/5, instead of just aping how the
anon case worked out.

Hugh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/