Re: [bisected] pre-3.16 regression on open() scalability

[Christoph Lameter]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014, Andi Kleen wrote:

> I still think it's totally the wrong direction to pollute so
> many fast paths with this obscure debugging check workaround
> unconditionally.
>
> cond_resched() is in EVERY sleeping lock and in EVERY memory allocation!
> And these are really critical paths for many workloads.
>
> If you really wanted to do this I think you would first need
> to define a cond_resched_i_am_not_fast() or somesuch.
>
> Or put it all behind some debugging ifdef.

Again I am fully on Andi's side here. Please remove these frequent calls
to cond_resched. If one wants a fully preemptable kernel then please use
CONFIG_PREEMPT.

--
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/