From: peter <pet...@ch...> - 2002-03-04 20:20:28
|
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 19:04, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > High contention on the pagemap_lru lock seems to be a major > scalability problem for rmap at the moment. Based on wli's and > Rik's suggestions, I've made a first cut at a patch to split up the > lock into a per-page lock for each pte_chain. > > This isn't ready to go yet - I'm not going to pretend it works. I'm > looking for feedback on the approach, and any obvious blunders > I've made in coding. I plan to move the lock in the pages_struct > into the flags field to save space once it's working reliably. > > If I may steal akpm's favourite disclaimer - "I know diddly squat > about ......" ;-) Flame away ..... > > Thanks, > > Martin. > Hi, knowing less that diddly squat about the code being discussed. I would like to mention that I usually use some little macro's to get rid of code like: lock( my_lock); if ( exp) { unlock( my_lock); /* do fancy stuph */ } else unlock( my_lock); and make it look like this: #define LOCK_EXP_F( exp, lock, f_lock, f_unlock) \ ({ typeof( exp) e; \ f_lock( lock); \ e = (exp); \ f_unlock( lock); \ e; }) #define PAGELOCK_EXP( exp, page) \ LOCK_EXP_F( exp, page, pte_chain_lock, pte_chain_unlock) if ( PAGELOCK_EXP( !page->pte_chain && (!page->buffers || do_flushpage( page, 0)), page)) lru_cache_del( page); If this is a not accepted coding style, so be it. Another little thing I've been wondering about is why keep using LRU style caches. Has anybody ever thought about using LRU-K caches? I know, they aren't O(1), but O(log(n)) isn't that bad agains the advantages: - easier to make concurrent (no head contention) - better caching properties (takes low frequency entries and cache sweeps into account) just my 2ct. Regards, Peter Zijlstra |