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

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 09:42:18AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 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.

That is a separate issue, but unnecessary calls to cond_resched()
should of course be removed -- no argument there.

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/