Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/13] percpu rwsem -v2
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Mon Jun 22 2015 - 15:06:10 EST
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 08:11:14PM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> On 06/22/2015 02:16 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Also, since Linus thinks lglocks is a failed locking primitive (which I whole
> > heartedly agree with, its preempt-disable latencies are an abomination), it
> > also converts the global part of fs/locks's usage of lglock over to a
> > percpu-rwsem and uses a per-cpu spinlock for the local part. This both provides
> > another (4th) percpu-rwsem users and removes an lglock user.
>
> I did a quick lockperf run with these patches on a 4 socket E5-4610 machine.
> These microbenches execercise the fs' locks a bit.
>
> I suspect I got the wrong tree. The patches did not apply cleanly. The resulting
> kernel boots fine and doesn't explode... so far...
Its against tip/master, although I expect the locking/core bits that
were sent to Linus earlier today to be the biggest missing piece.
All I really did was build a kernel with lockdep enabled and boot +
build a kernel to see it didn't go belly up.
> The results aren't looking too bad. Though building a kernel with 'make -j200'
> was extreme slow. I'll look into it tomorrow.
>
> https://git.samba.org/jlayton/linux.git/?p=jlayton/lockperf.git;a=summary
Sweet, I wasn't aware these existed. I'll go have a play.
> posix01
> mean variance sigma max min
> 4.1.0 121.9020 27882.5260 166.9806 603.5509 0.0063
> percpu-rwsem 185.3981 38474.3836 196.1489 580.6532 0.0073
>
>
> posix02
> mean variance sigma max min
> 4.1.0 12.7461 3.1802 1.7833 15.5411 8.1018
> percpu-rwsem 16.2341 4.3038 2.0746 19.3271 11.1751
>
These two seem to hurt, lemme go look at what they do.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/