From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: Mike Waychison <mikew@google.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/8] Deferred dput() and iput() -- reducing lock contention
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 06:52:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <877i4pdx4f.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090117022936.20425.43248.stgit@crlf.corp.google.com> (Mike Waychison's message of "Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:29:36 -0800")
Mike Waychison <mikew@google.com> writes:
> livelock on dcache_lock/inode_lock (specifically in atomic_dec_and_lock())
I'm not sure how something can livelock in atomic_dec_and_lock which
doesn't take a spinlock itself? Are you saying you run into NUMA memory
unfairness here? Or did I misparse you?
> This patchset is an attempt to try and reduce the locking overheads associated
> with final dput() and final iput(). This is done by batching dentries and
> inodes into per-process queues and processing them in 'parallel' to consolidate
> some of the locking.
I was wondering what this does to the latencies when dput/iput
is only done for very objects. Does it increase costs then
significantly?
As a high level comment it seems like a lot of work to work
around global locks, like the inode_lock, where it might be better to
just split the lock up? Mind you I don't have a clear proposal
how to do that, but surely it's doable somehow.
-Andi
--
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-21 5:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-17 2:29 Mike Waychison
2009-01-17 2:29 ` [PATCH v1 1/8] Deferred batching of dput() Mike Waychison
2009-01-17 10:15 ` Evgeniy Polyakov
2009-01-20 20:07 ` Mike Waychison
2009-01-17 2:29 ` [PATCH v1 2/8] Parallel dput() Mike Waychison
2009-01-17 2:29 ` [PATCH v1 3/8] Deferred batching of iput() Mike Waychison
2009-01-17 10:18 ` Evgeniy Polyakov
2009-01-20 20:07 ` Mike Waychison
2009-01-17 2:29 ` [PATCH v1 4/8] Fixing iput() called from put_super path Mike Waychison
2009-01-17 2:30 ` [PATCH v1 5/8] Parallelize iput() Mike Waychison
2009-01-17 2:30 ` [PATCH v1 6/8] hugetlbfs drop_inode update Mike Waychison
2009-01-17 2:30 ` [PATCH v1 7/8] Make drop_caches flush pending dput()s and iput()s Mike Waychison
2009-01-17 2:30 ` [PATCH v1 8/8] Make the sync path drain dentries and inodes Mike Waychison
2009-01-17 7:04 ` [PATCH v1 0/8] Deferred dput() and iput() -- reducing lock contention Eric Dumazet
2009-01-20 20:00 ` Mike Waychison
2009-01-17 8:12 ` Dave Chinner
2009-01-20 19:01 ` Mike Waychison
2009-01-29 2:09 ` Mike Waychison
2009-01-21 5:52 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2009-01-21 6:22 ` Mike Waychison
2009-01-21 8:48 ` Andi Kleen
2009-01-21 17:28 ` Mike Waychison
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=877i4pdx4f.fsf@basil.nowhere.org \
--to=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mikew@google.com \
/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
Powered by JetHome