On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 08:31:40AM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> >> > > I don't recall seeing tree_lock to be a problem for DSS workload either.
> >> >
> >> > I have seen the tree_lock being a problem a number of times with large
> >> > scale NUMA type workloads.
> >>
> >> I totally agree! My earlier posts are strictly referring to industry
> >> standard db workloads (OLTP, DSS). I'm not saying it's not a problem
> >> for everyone :-) Obviously you just outlined a few ....
> >
> > I'm a bit late to the party here (was gone on vacation), but I do have
> > profiles from DSS workloads using page-cache rather than O_DIRECT and
> > I do see spin_lock_irq() in the profiles which I'm pretty certain are
> > locks spinning for access to the radix_tree. I'll talk about it a bit
> > more up in Ottawa but here's the top 5 on my profile (sorry don't have
> > the number of ticks at the momement):
> >
> > 1. dedicated_idle (waiting for I/O)
> > 2. __copy_tofrom_user
> > 3. radix_tree_delete
> > 4. _spin_lock_irq
> > 5. __find_get_block
> >
> > So, yes, if the page-cache is used in a DSS workload then one will see
> > the tree-lock. BTW, this was on a PPC64 machine w/ a fairly small
> > NUMA factor.
>
> The easiest way to confirm the spin-lock thing is to recompile with
> CONFIG_SPINLINE, and take a new profile, then diff the two ...
Yep...
Unfortunately, this is broken in PPC64 since 2.6.9-rc2 or something
like that, I never had a chance to track down what the issue was
exactly. IIRC, there was a lot of churn in the spinlocking code
around that time.
Sonny
-
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |