From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7021C224FA; Fri, 24 Apr 2026 03:20:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.50.34 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777000855; cv=none; b=EjIHWlCpXI9mKW2aNKnbfpmgGesfD9tphvjgPKw47lSrjwH02vvgosKOJ/V//a5nKFZ+zY6pbFIFu96sQrSdeaK+hdTH3KfvkSv07JFwwEpXBlQSqTXT6o36G/roj3SP15LL+azfj0un2lQVFAMc/EO6/hH3zeHx/LEb4yllK34= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777000855; c=relaxed/simple; bh=HnbcZuJRm5gwp5waDh2UgtplEn2VXuo2oozw9jzfTd0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=s8q9uwBrgY1GNjrdyuzpniia9ftxlMqm5zkH8hu3BYEcvHetHkUEk5KHqmw5aBOIjhzK8xu2qVHYwfDfVeg0JKIpHdEPjCXIPKay37f0vpq/orzp5RuvYMz78ZapJNRd7k9GoXck7lWAxH+0cMUJAnn0wuB9+F8rLGraFlVoVVU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=KgS2rpB5; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.50.34 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="KgS2rpB5" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=vF1AU0LXlnhIfmJBF/DVKC/jdqA8hAJ+qqGd+yTOFkg=; b=KgS2rpB5V/NgcXiZBzBut1nFMM VXy6TDHg2uPCUyKs50GnvU925GmHjYdme9k93ETpkPAcMi4yGAcHfoloHON5royLGcfk8+E08UqPw naQHxuP1Ae5cpfKVxnSmm3CrrlOmlG8Z5N2UpAfZUhfEQhojGoZ1YG4o9AYgbK/XNG1c7lR+QYFLS uZVbeirmfMjaa+0naIO+FQir+qgxIig2+vN0cuJ+zvrC9eX/Dm2LJuul3conDsK9cZNJW92dW6eV7 C0LLBztiFOrzhZhwKq+Gv6w/0pBl7kmGRUdJhEs2thWxRXXuAoCXgq+y1/NEw8Tua6QB7h3wlsfUh e8zCrlEg==; Received: from willy by casper.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wG75r-0000000EUjd-3o1v; Fri, 24 Apr 2026 03:20:40 +0000 Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2026 04:20:39 +0100 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Yibin Liu Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "Liam.Howlett@oracle.com" , "viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk" , "brauner@kernel.org" , "mjguzik@gmail.com" , Jianyong Wu , Huangsj , Yuan Zhong , "jack@suse.cz" , "jlayton@kernel.org" , "chuck.lever@oracle.com" , "alex.aring@gmail.com" , "vbabka@kernel.org" , "jannh@google.com" , "pfalcato@suse.de" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: =?utf-8?B?562U5aSNOiDnrZTlpI06IFtQQVRD?= =?utf-8?B?SF0gbW06IEFk?= =?utf-8?Q?d?= RWH_RMAP_EXCLUDE flag to exclude files from rmap sharing Message-ID: References: <20260421020932.3212532-1-liuyibin@hygon.cn> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 01:08:35AM +0000, Yibin Liu wrote: > On an Intel Emerald Rapids server (112 cores), run the execl benchmark from > UnixBench with the command: ./Run -c 220 execl > Then perf top shows: > > 91.53% [kernel] [k] osq_lock > 0.50% [kernel] [k] rwsem_spin_on_owner OK, but does this represent a realistic workload? It's pretty easy to construct workloads that hammer on particular locks; the question is whether it's a relevant performance bottleneck that customers care about.