"Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I am using a patch that seems sligthly better : It removes the filp_count_lock
> > > as yours but introduces a percpu variable, and a lazy nr_files . (Its value
> > > can be off with a delta of +/- 16*num_possible_cpus()
> >
> > Yes, I think that is better.
>
> I agree that Eric's approach likely improves performance on large systems
> due to decreased cache thrashing. However, the real problem is getting
> both good throughput and good latency in RCU callback processing, given
> Lee Revell's latency testing results. Once we get that in hand, then
> we should consider Eric's approach.
Dipankar's patch risks worsening large-SMP scalability, doesn't it?
Putting an atomic op into the file_free path?
And afaict it fixes up the skew in the nr_files accounting but we're still
exposed to the risk of large amounts of memory getting chewed up due to RCU
latencies?
(And it forgot to initialise the atomic_t)
(And has a couple of suspicious-looking module exports. We don't support
CONFIG_PROC_FS=m).
-
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]
