On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 08:44:03AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 01:46 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > Hmm, well this is rather a slow path, I would say. I'd prefer not to
> > modify schedule in this way (if we just get scheduled back on after
> > being switched away, the su
On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 01:46 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Hmm, well this is rather a slow path, I would say. I'd prefer not to
> modify schedule in this way (if we just get scheduled back on after
> being switched away, the subsequent call to schedule is going to be
> cache hot and not do too much w
There functions are only called by 'static int __init init_btrfs_fs(void)',
so also mark them as '__init'.
Signed-off-by: Qinghuang Feng
---
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
index eee060f..7e03ec8 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
+++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
@@ -2045,7 +2045,7 @@ int btrfs
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 18:18 +0530, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> Add man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in
> Kept the name with the name in, so that further processing such as
> BUILD_DATE BUILD_VERSION etc. could be included later.
>
> All man pages included in the man directory to avoid file cluttering.
>
Thanks f
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 15:43 +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
> * Chris Mason (chris.ma...@oracle.com) wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 15:21 +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > when mounting an intentionally corrupted btrfs filesystem i get the
> > > following warning and bug message.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 01:35:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> You're taking a whizzy new feature which drastically changes a critical
> core kernel feature and jamming it into mainline with a vestigial
> amount of testing coverage without giving sufficient care and thought
> to the practical les
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 07:23:12PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:
> >>(no they're not, Nick's ticket locks still spin on a shared cacheline
> >>IIRC -- the MCS locks mentioned could fix this)
> >>
> >
> >It reminds me. I wrote a basic variation of MCS spinlocks a while back. And
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 06:22:36PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 18:18 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > > @@ -173,21 +237,21 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock,
> > > spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
> > >
> > > debug_m
* Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I also checked Fedora and it has SCHED_DEBUG=y
> > in its kernel rpms.
>
> If all distros set SCHED_DEBUG=y then fine.
95% of the distros and significant majority of the lkml traffic.
And no, we dont generally dont provide knobs for essential performance
features
* Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 22:41, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> >> > You just disproved your own case :(
> >>
> >> how so? 80% is not enough? I also checked Fedora and it has
> >> SCHED_DEBUG=y in its kernel rpms.
> >
> > Ubuntu has CONFIG_SCHED_DEBU
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 22:41, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>> > You just disproved your own case :(
>>
>> how so? 80% is not enough? I also checked Fedora and it has
>> SCHED_DEBUG=y in its kernel rpms.
>
> Ubuntu has CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG=y as well in their kernels.
$ cat /etc/Su
* Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > You just disproved your own case :(
>
> how so? 80% is not enough? I also checked Fedora and it has
> SCHED_DEBUG=y in its kernel rpms.
Ubuntu has CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG=y as well in their kernels.
> note that there's also a performance issue here: we generally _dont
>
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:14:58 +0100
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:51:22 +0100
> > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > * Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > Do people enable CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG?
> > > > >
> > > > > If they suspect performance p
* Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:51:22 +0100
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> >
> > * Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > > > Do people enable CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG?
> > > >
> > > > If they suspect performance problems and want to analyze them?
> > >
> > > The vast majority of users do not
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:51:22 +0100
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > > > Do people enable CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG?
> > >
> > > If they suspect performance problems and want to analyze them?
> >
> > The vast majority of users do not and usually cannot compile their own
> > kerne
* Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Do people enable CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG?
> >
> > If they suspect performance problems and want to analyze them?
>
> The vast majority of users do not and usually cannot compile their own
> kernels.
... which they derive from distro kernels or some old .config they al
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:27:36 +0100
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 11:36 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > Do people enable CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG?
> >
> > Well, I have it always enabled, but I've honestly no idea if that makes
> > me weird.
> >
>
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:14:35 +0100
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:00:08 +0100
> > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > * Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:33:19 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Please pull the a
* Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 11:36 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > Do people enable CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG?
>
> Well, I have it always enabled, but I've honestly no idea if that makes
> me weird.
>
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES=n, CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG=y is getting to be a pretty
>
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:50:50 +0100
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 11:36 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > Do people enable CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG?
>
> Well, I have it always enabled, but I've honestly no idea if that makes
> me weird.
It'd be weird if you're not weird.
> > CONFIG_D
* Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:00:08 +0100
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> >
> > * Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:33:19 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > > Please pull the adaptive-mutexes-for-linus git tree
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > - It seems a major
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 11:36 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Do people enable CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG?
Well, I have it always enabled, but I've honestly no idea if that makes
me weird.
> CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES=n, CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG=y is getting to be a pretty
> small subset?
Could be, do you fancy me doi
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:00:08 +0100
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:33:19 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > > Please pull the adaptive-mutexes-for-linus git tree
> >
> >
> >
> > - It seems a major shortcoming that the feature is disabled if
> > C
* Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 10:53 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:33:19 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > > Please pull the adaptive-mutexes-for-linus git tree
> >
> >
> >
> > - It seems a major shortcoming that the feature is disabled if
> > CONF
* Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Latest performance figures, on a 2-socket 16-way Nehalem test-system,
> running the code above, measured via "test-mutex V 128 10" VFS
> creat+unlink scalability test on tmpfs and ext3:
>
> no-spin spin
>
> [tmpfs]avg ops/se
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 10:53 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:33:19 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > Please pull the adaptive-mutexes-for-linus git tree
>
>
>
> - It seems a major shortcoming that the feature is disabled if
> CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES=y. It means that lots of pe
* Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:33:19 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > Please pull the adaptive-mutexes-for-linus git tree
>
>
>
> - It seems a major shortcoming that the feature is disabled if
> CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES=y. It means that lots of people won't test it.
>
> - Whe
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:33:19 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Please pull the adaptive-mutexes-for-linus git tree
- It seems a major shortcoming that the feature is disabled if
CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES=y. It means that lots of people won't test it.
- When people hit performance/latency oddities, it
* Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Linus,
>
> Please pull the adaptive-mutexes-for-linus git tree from:
>
>git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/linux-2.6-tip.git
> adaptive-mutexes-for-linus
>
> We dropped two fresh patches from v11 for the time being: the two debug
> patches, they had
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 19:33 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Full series, including changelogs available at:
> >
> > http://programming.kicks-ass.net/kernel-patches/mutex-adaptive-spin/
> >
> > and should shortly appear in a git tree near Ingo :-)
>
> Linus,
>
> Plea
* Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Full series, including changelogs available at:
>
> http://programming.kicks-ass.net/kernel-patches/mutex-adaptive-spin/
>
> and should shortly appear in a git tree near Ingo :-)
Linus,
Please pull the adaptive-mutexes-for-linus git tree from:
git://git.kernel.
2009/1/14 Chris Mason :
> On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 12:18 +0100, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
>> 2009/1/14 Chris Mason :
>> > On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 18:21 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 08:49 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > So do a v10, and ask people to test.
>> >>
>>
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 18:18 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > @@ -173,21 +237,21 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock,
> > spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
> >
> > debug_mutex_free_waiter(&waiter);
> > + preempt_enable();
> >
Nick Piggin wrote:
(no they're not, Nick's ticket locks still spin on a shared cacheline
IIRC -- the MCS locks mentioned could fix this)
It reminds me. I wrote a basic variation of MCS spinlocks a while back. And
converted dcache lock to use it, which showed large dbench improvements on
a
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 06:00:36PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Full series, including changelogs available at:
>
> http://programming.kicks-ass.net/kernel-patches/mutex-adaptive-spin/
>
> and should shortly appear in a git tree near Ingo :-)
Linus is going to take a wholesale conversion of m
* Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > If I take out:
> > > /*
> > >* If there are pending waiters, join them.
> > >*/
> > > if (!list_empty(&lock->wait_list))
> > > break;
> > >
> > >
> > > v10 pops dbench 50 up to 1800MB/s. The other tests soundly beat my
> > > spinning and ar
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 05:46:39PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 19:32 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Spinlocks can use 'pure' MCS locks.
> > >
> >
> > How about this, then. In mutex_lock(), keep wait_lock locked and only
> > release it when sc
Full series, including changelogs available at:
http://programming.kicks-ass.net/kernel-patches/mutex-adaptive-spin/
and should shortly appear in a git tree near Ingo :-)
mutex: small cleanup
mutex: preemption fixes
mutex: implement adaptive spinning
mutex: set owner in mutex_lock() only
m
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 12:18 +0100, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> 2009/1/14 Chris Mason :
> > On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 18:21 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 08:49 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> >
> >> > So do a v10, and ask people to test.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Subject: mutex: imple
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 19:32 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Spinlocks can use 'pure' MCS locks.
> >
>
> How about this, then. In mutex_lock(), keep wait_lock locked and only
> release it when scheduling out. Waiter spinning naturally follows. If
> spinlocks are cache f
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 07:43 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> >
> > * Chris Mason wrote:
> >
> > > v10 is better that not spinning, but its in the 5-10% range. So, I've
> > > been trying to find ways to close the gap, just to understand exactly
> >
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Chris Mason wrote:
>
> > v10 is better that not spinning, but its in the 5-10% range. So, I've
> > been trying to find ways to close the gap, just to understand exactly
> > where it is different.
> >
> > If I take out:
> > /*
> > * If
* Chris Mason wrote:
> v10 is better that not spinning, but its in the 5-10% range. So, I've
> been trying to find ways to close the gap, just to understand exactly
> where it is different.
>
> If I take out:
> /*
>* If there are pending waiters, join them.
>*/
>
2009/1/14 Chris Mason :
> On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 18:21 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 08:49 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> >
>> > So do a v10, and ask people to test.
>>
>> ---
>> Subject: mutex: implement adaptive spinning
>> From: Peter Zijlstra
>> Date: Mon Jan 12 14:01:4
44 matches
Mail list logo
