On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 09:38:16AM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 08:52:25AM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> >>Mmm. not wholly convinced that's true. Whilst i don't have lockmeter
> >>stats to hand, the heavy time in __d_lookup seems to indicate we may
> >>still have a problem to me. I guess we could move the spinlocks out
> >>of line again to test this fairly easily (or get lockmeter upstream).
> >
> >We definitly should get lockmeter in. Does anyone volunteer for doing
> >the cleanup and merged?
>
> On second thoughts .. I don't think it'd actually work for this since
> the locks aren't global. Not that it shouldn't be done anyway, but ...
>
> ISTR we still thought dcache scalability was a significant problem last
> time anyone looked at it seriously - just never got fixed. Dipankar?
My lock stat stuff shows dcache to a be a problem under -rt as well. It
is keyed off the same mechanism as lockdep. It's pretty heavily hit
under even normal loads relative to other kinds of lock overhead even
for casual file operations on a 2x system. I can't imagine how lousy
it's going to be under real load on a 8x or higher machine.
However, this pathc is -rt only and spinlock times are meaningless under
it because of preemptiblity.
bill
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
