Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] lib/list_batch: A simple list insertion/deletion batching facility

[Waiman Long]

On 02/06/2016 06:57 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 06:11:56PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > On 01/31/2016 07:47 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > So at what point does simply replacing the list_head with a list_lru
> > > become more efficient than this batch processing (i.e.
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/3/10/660)?  The list_lru isn't a great
> > > fit for the inode list (doesn't need any of the special LRU/memcg
> > > stuff https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/3/16/261) but it will tell us if,
> > > like Ingo suggested, moving more towards a generic per-cpu list
> > > would provide better overall performance...
> > I will take a look at the list_lru patch to see if that help. As for
> > the per-cpu list, I tried that and it didn't quite work out.
> OK, see my last email as to why Andi's patch didn't change anything.
> The list_lru implementation has a list per node, a lock per node,
> and each item is placed on the list for the node it is physically
> allocated from. Hence for local workloads, the list/lock that is
> accessed for add/remove should be local to the node and hence should
> reduce cache line contention mostly to within a single node.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.

I have just sent out a new patchset using per-cpu list with per-cpu 
locks. I used the per-cpu list as the changes will be simpler and easier 
to review. Please let me know your thought on that.

Thanks,
Longman