On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 09:08:15PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/15, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 08:15:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > No, it makes the read-side primitive contain an unconditional memory
> > > barrier, that forgoes the entire point.
> > >
> > > The writers are stupidly expensive already for they need global
> > > serialization, optimizing them in any way doesn't make sense.
> >
> > That could well be the case, but it would be good to see the numbers.
>
> Please see the discussion in another "change sb_writers to use
> percpu_rw_semaphore".
>
> The simple test-case from Dave
>
> #include <fcntl.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
> #include <string.h>
> #include <assert.h>
>
> #define BUFLEN 1
> #define FILESIZE (1 * 1024 * 1024)
>
> char *testcase_description = "Separate file write";
>
> void testcase(unsigned long long *iterations)
> {
> char buf[BUFLEN];
> char tmpfile[] = "/run/user/1000/willitscale.XXXXXX";
> int fd = mkstemp(tmpfile);
> unsigned long size = 0;
>
> memset(buf, 0, sizeof(buf));
> assert(fd >= 0);
> unlink(tmpfile);
>
> while (1) {
> int ret = write(fd, buf, BUFLEN);
> assert(ret >= 0);
> size += ret;
> if (size >= FILESIZE) {
> size = 0;
> lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_SET);
> }
>
> (*iterations)++;
> }
> }
>
> runs 12% faster if we "simply" remove mb's from sb_start/end_write().
> percpu_rw_semaphore does this too and has the approximately same
> performance, and we can (hopefully) remove this nontrivial, currently
> not 100% correct, and very "special" code in fs/super.c.
OK, if that is the type of workload you are using this stuff for,
you really don't want read-side memory barriers.
Thanx, Paul
--
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/
