From: peter <peter.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: "Martin J. Bligh" <Martin.Bligh@us.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] breaking up the pagemap_lru_lock in rmap
Date: 04 Mar 2002 21:17:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1015273075.21556.95.camel@twins.localnet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <194860000.1015265091@flay>
In-Reply-To: <194860000.1015265091@flay>
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 19:04, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> High contention on the pagemap_lru lock seems to be a major
> scalability problem for rmap at the moment. Based on wli's and
> Rik's suggestions, I've made a first cut at a patch to split up the
> lock into a per-page lock for each pte_chain.
>
> This isn't ready to go yet - I'm not going to pretend it works. I'm
> looking for feedback on the approach, and any obvious blunders
> I've made in coding. I plan to move the lock in the pages_struct
> into the flags field to save space once it's working reliably.
>
> If I may steal akpm's favourite disclaimer - "I know diddly squat
> about ......" ;-) Flame away .....
>
> Thanks,
>
> Martin.
>
Hi, knowing less that diddly squat about the code being discussed.
I would like to mention that I usually use some little macro's
to get rid of code like:
lock( my_lock);
if ( exp) {
unlock( my_lock);
/* do fancy stuph */
} else
unlock( my_lock);
and make it look like this:
#define LOCK_EXP_F( exp, lock, f_lock, f_unlock) \
({ typeof( exp) e; \
f_lock( lock); \
e = (exp); \
f_unlock( lock); \
e; })
#define PAGELOCK_EXP( exp, page) \
LOCK_EXP_F( exp, page, pte_chain_lock, pte_chain_unlock)
if ( PAGELOCK_EXP( !page->pte_chain &&
(!page->buffers || do_flushpage( page, 0)), page))
lru_cache_del( page);
If this is a not accepted coding style, so be it.
Another little thing I've been wondering about is why keep using
LRU style caches. Has anybody ever thought about using LRU-K
caches? I know, they aren't O(1), but O(log(n)) isn't that bad
agains the advantages:
- easier to make concurrent (no head contention)
- better caching properties (takes low frequency
entries and cache sweeps into account)
just my 2ct.
Regards,
Peter Zijlstra
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-03-04 20:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-03-04 18:04 Martin J. Bligh
2002-03-04 20:17 ` peter [this message]
2002-03-05 2:02 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-03-05 5:17 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-03-05 12:31 ` Rik van Riel
2002-03-09 5:20 ` breaking up the pagemap_lru_lock (was in rmap, now everywhere ;-) ) Martin J. Bligh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1015273075.21556.95.camel@twins.localnet \
--to=peter.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=Martin.Bligh@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®