On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:54:55AM -0700, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On 03/07/2013 06:55 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 01:45:33AM -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 15:53 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >>
> >>> Indeed. Though how well my patches will work with
On 03/07/2013 06:55 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 01:45:33AM -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 15:53 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed. Though how well my patches will work with Oracle will
>>> depend a lot on what kind of semctl syscalls they are
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 01:45:33AM -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 15:53 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > Indeed. Though how well my patches will work with Oracle will
> > depend a lot on what kind of semctl syscalls they are doing.
> >
> > Does Oracle typically do one
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 15:53 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Indeed. Though how well my patches will work with Oracle will
> depend a lot on what kind of semctl syscalls they are doing.
>
> Does Oracle typically do one semop per semctl syscall, or does
> it pass in a whole bunch at once?
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 15:53 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
Indeed. Though how well my patches will work with Oracle will
depend a lot on what kind of semctl syscalls they are doing.
Does Oracle typically do one semop per semctl syscall, or does
it pass in a whole bunch at once?
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 01:45:33AM -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 15:53 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
Indeed. Though how well my patches will work with Oracle will
depend a lot on what kind of semctl syscalls they are doing.
Does Oracle typically do one semop per
On 03/07/2013 06:55 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 01:45:33AM -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 15:53 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
Indeed. Though how well my patches will work with Oracle will
depend a lot on what kind of semctl syscalls they are doing.
Does
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:54:55AM -0700, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
On 03/07/2013 06:55 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 01:45:33AM -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 15:53 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
Indeed. Though how well my patches will work with Oracle will
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> Digging into the _raw_spin_lock call:
>
> 17.86% oracle [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock
> |
> --- _raw_spin_lock
> |
>
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Davidlohr Bueso davidlohr.bu...@hp.com wrote:
Digging into the _raw_spin_lock call:
17.86% oracle [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock
|
--- _raw_spin_lock
|
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 22:53 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 03/05/2013 10:46 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> > On 03/05/2013 03:53 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> >> Indeed. Though how well my patches will work with Oracle will
> >> depend a lot on what kind of semctl syscalls they are doing.
> >>
> >>
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 07:40 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Davidlohr Bueso
> wrote:
> >
> > The following set of patches are based on the discussion of holding the
> > ipc lock unnecessarily, such as for permissions and security checks:
>
> Ok, looks fine from a
On 03/05/2013 10:46 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
On 03/05/2013 03:53 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
Indeed. Though how well my patches will work with Oracle will
depend a lot on what kind of semctl syscalls they are doing.
Does Oracle typically do one semop per semctl syscall, or does
it pass in a whole
On 03/05/2013 03:53 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 03/05/2013 03:52 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
The recommended kernel.sem value from Oracle is "250 32000 100 128".
I have
tried to reduce the maximum semaphores per array (1st value) while
On 03/05/2013 03:52 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
The recommended kernel.sem value from Oracle is "250 32000 100 128". I have
tried to reduce the maximum semaphores per array (1st value) while
increasing the max number of arrays. That tends to
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
>
> The recommended kernel.sem value from Oracle is "250 32000 100 128". I have
> tried to reduce the maximum semaphores per array (1st value) while
> increasing the max number of arrays. That tends to reduce the ipc_lock
> contention in kernel,
On 03/05/2013 12:10 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 03/05/2013 04:35 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
2) While on an Oracle swingbench DSS (data mining) workload the
improvements are not as exciting as with Rik's benchmark, we can see
some positive numbers. For an 8 socket machine the following are the
On 03/05/2013 04:35 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
2) While on an Oracle swingbench DSS (data mining) workload the
improvements are not as exciting as with Rik's benchmark, we can see
some positive numbers. For an 8 socket machine the following are the
percentages of %sys time incurred in the ipc
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> The following set of patches are based on the discussion of holding the
> ipc lock unnecessarily, such as for permissions and security checks:
Ok, looks fine from a quick look (but then, so did your previous patch-set ;)
You still
Hi,
The following set of patches are based on the discussion of holding the
ipc lock unnecessarily, such as for permissions and security checks:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/28/540
Patch 1/4: Remove the bogus comment from ipc_checkid() requiring that
the ipc lock be held before calling it.
Hi,
The following set of patches are based on the discussion of holding the
ipc lock unnecessarily, such as for permissions and security checks:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/28/540
Patch 1/4: Remove the bogus comment from ipc_checkid() requiring that
the ipc lock be held before calling it.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Davidlohr Bueso davidlohr.bu...@hp.com wrote:
The following set of patches are based on the discussion of holding the
ipc lock unnecessarily, such as for permissions and security checks:
Ok, looks fine from a quick look (but then, so did your previous patch-set
On 03/05/2013 04:35 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
2) While on an Oracle swingbench DSS (data mining) workload the
improvements are not as exciting as with Rik's benchmark, we can see
some positive numbers. For an 8 socket machine the following are the
percentages of %sys time incurred in the ipc
On 03/05/2013 12:10 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 03/05/2013 04:35 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
2) While on an Oracle swingbench DSS (data mining) workload the
improvements are not as exciting as with Rik's benchmark, we can see
some positive numbers. For an 8 socket machine the following are the
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Waiman Long waiman.l...@hp.com wrote:
The recommended kernel.sem value from Oracle is 250 32000 100 128. I have
tried to reduce the maximum semaphores per array (1st value) while
increasing the max number of arrays. That tends to reduce the ipc_lock
contention
On 03/05/2013 03:52 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Waiman Long waiman.l...@hp.com wrote:
The recommended kernel.sem value from Oracle is 250 32000 100 128. I have
tried to reduce the maximum semaphores per array (1st value) while
increasing the max number of arrays.
On 03/05/2013 03:53 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 03/05/2013 03:52 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Waiman Long waiman.l...@hp.com wrote:
The recommended kernel.sem value from Oracle is 250 32000 100 128.
I have
tried to reduce the maximum semaphores per array (1st
On 03/05/2013 10:46 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
On 03/05/2013 03:53 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
Indeed. Though how well my patches will work with Oracle will
depend a lot on what kind of semctl syscalls they are doing.
Does Oracle typically do one semop per semctl syscall, or does
it pass in a whole
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 07:40 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Davidlohr Bueso davidlohr.bu...@hp.com
wrote:
The following set of patches are based on the discussion of holding the
ipc lock unnecessarily, such as for permissions and security checks:
Ok, looks
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 22:53 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 03/05/2013 10:46 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
On 03/05/2013 03:53 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
Indeed. Though how well my patches will work with Oracle will
depend a lot on what kind of semctl syscalls they are doing.
Does Oracle
30 matches
Mail list logo
