On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 10:21:53AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
quoted text
> Do we actually know that the locks code is implicated in this regression?

Not yet.  We don't even know it's the BKL.  It's just my best guess.
We're waiting for the original reporter to run some tests Ingo pointed
him at.

quoted text
> I'd initially thought "lseek" but afaict tmpfs doesn't hit default_llseek()
> or remote_llseek().

Correct.

quoted text
> Finally: how come we regressed by swapping the semaphore implementation
> anyway?  We went from one sleeping lock implementation to another - I'd
> have expected performance to be pretty much the same.
> 
> <looks at the implementation>
> 
> down(), down_interruptible() and down_try() should use spin_lock_irq(), not
> irqsave.

We talked about this ... the BKL actually requires that you be able to
acquire it with interrupts disabled.  Maybe we should make lock_kernel
do this:

	if (likely(!depth)) {
		unsigned long flags;
		local_save_flags(flags);
		down();
		local_irq_restore(flags);
	}

But tweaking down() is not worth it -- we should be eliminating users of
both the BKL and semaphores instead.

quoted text
> up() seems to be doing wake-one, FIFO which is nice.  Did the
> implementation which we just removed also do that?  Was it perhaps
> accidentally doing LIFO or something like that?

That's a question for someone who knows x86 assembler, I think.

-- 
Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/