linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: ext3 allocate-with-reservation latencies
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 06:13:59 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050405041359.GA17265@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1112673094.14322.10.camel@mindpipe>


* Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com> wrote:

> I can trigger latencies up to ~1.1 ms with a CVS checkout.  It looks
> like inside ext3_try_to_allocate_with_rsv, we spend a long time in this
> loop:
> 
> ext3_test_allocatable (bitmap_search_next_usable_block)
> find_next_zero_bit (bitmap_search_next_usable_block)
> find_next_zero_bit (bitmap_search_next_usable_block)
> 
> ext3_test_allocatable (bitmap_search_next_usable_block)
> find_next_zero_bit (bitmap_search_next_usable_block)
> find_next_zero_bit (bitmap_search_next_usable_block)

Breaking the lock is not really possible at that point, and it doesnt 
look too easy to make that path preemptable either. (To make it 
preemptable rsv_lock would need to become a semaphore (this could be 
fine, as it's only used when a new reservation window is created).)

The hard part is the seqlock - the read side is performance-critical, 
maybe it could be solved via a preemptable but still scalable seqlock 
variant that uses a semaphore for the write side? It all depends on what 
the scalability impact of using a semaphore for the new-window code 
would be.

the best longterm solution for these types of tradeoffs seems to be to 
add a locking primitive that is a spinlock on !PREEMPT kernels and a 
semaphore on PREEMPT kernels. I.e. not as drastic as a full PREEMPT_RT 
kernel, but good enough to make latency-critical codepaths of ext3 
preemptable, without having to hurt scalability on !PREEMPT. The 
PREEMPT_RT kernel has all the 'compile-time type-switching' 
infrastructure for such tricks, all that needs to be changed to switch a 
lock's type is to change the spinlock definition - all the 
spin_lock(&lock) uses can remain unchanged. (The same method is used on 
PREEMPT_RT to have 'dual-type' spinlocks.)

the same thing could then also be used for things like the mm lock, and 
other longer-held locks that PREEMPT would like to see preemptable. It 
would also be a good first step towards merging the PREEMPT_RT 
infrastructure ;-) I'll cook up something.

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2005-04-05  4:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 68+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-04-05  3:51 ext3 allocate-with-reservation latencies Lee Revell
2005-04-05  4:13 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2005-04-05  6:10   ` Mingming Cao
2005-04-05 16:38     ` Lee Revell
2005-04-06  5:35   ` Mingming Cao
2005-04-06  9:51     ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2005-04-06 16:53       ` Mingming Cao
2005-04-06 18:22         ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2005-04-06 19:03           ` Mingming Cao
2005-04-07  8:14     ` Ingo Molnar
2005-04-07 13:08       ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2005-04-07 19:16         ` Mingming Cao
2005-04-07 23:37         ` Mingming Cao
2005-04-08 14:40           ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2005-04-08 16:06             ` Arjan van de Ven
2005-04-08 18:10             ` Mingming Cao
2005-04-08 18:12               ` Lee Revell
2005-04-11 11:48               ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2005-04-11 18:38                 ` Mingming Cao
2005-04-11 19:12                   ` Lee Revell
2005-04-11 19:22                     ` Lee Revell
2005-04-11 19:57                   ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2005-04-12  6:41                     ` Mingming Cao
2005-04-12 11:18                       ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2005-04-12 23:27                         ` Mingming Cao
2005-04-13 10:29                           ` Stephen C. Tweedie
     [not found]                             ` <1113597161.3899.80.camel@localhost.localdomain>
2005-04-18 18:00                               ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2005-04-18 21:56                                 ` [Ext2-devel] " Mingming Cao
2005-04-22 22:10                             ` [RFC][PATCH] Reduce ext3 allocate-with-reservation lock latencies Mingming Cao
2005-04-28  3:45                               ` Lee Revell
2005-04-28  7:37                                 ` Mingming Cao
2005-04-28 16:12                                   ` Lee Revell
2005-04-28 18:34                                     ` Mingming Cao
2005-04-29  6:18                                       ` Mingming Cao
2005-04-28 19:14                                 ` [RFC] Adding multiple block allocation to current ext3 Mingming Cao
2005-04-29 13:52                                   ` [Ext2-devel] [RFC] Adding multiple block allocation Suparna Bhattacharya
2005-04-29 17:10                                     ` Mingming Cao
2005-04-29 19:42                                       ` Mingming Cao
2005-04-29 20:57                                         ` Andrew Morton
2005-04-29 21:12                                           ` Mingming Cao
2005-04-29 21:34                                             ` Andrew Morton
2005-04-30 16:00                                       ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2005-04-29 18:45                                     ` Badari Pulavarty
2005-04-29 23:22                                       ` Mingming Cao
2005-04-30 16:10                                         ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2005-04-30 17:11                                           ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2005-04-30 18:07                                             ` Mingming Cao
2005-05-02  4:46                                               ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2005-04-30 16:52                                       ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2005-04-30  0:33                                     ` Mingming Cao
2005-04-30  0:44                                     ` Mingming Cao
2005-04-30 17:03                                       ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2006-01-10 23:26                                   ` [PATCH 0/5] multiple block allocation to current ext3 Mingming Cao
2006-01-11  5:25                                     ` Andrew Morton
2006-01-11 19:17                                       ` Mingming Cao
2006-01-11 19:43                                         ` Andrew Morton
2006-01-11 21:31                                           ` Mingming Cao
2006-01-14  1:12                                           ` Fall back io scheduler for 2.6.15? Mingming Cao
2006-01-14  1:49                                             ` Andrew Morton
2006-01-14  5:22                                               ` Dave Jones
2006-01-16  8:43                                               ` Jens Axboe
2006-01-16 19:45                                                 ` [PATCH] Fall back io scheduler ( Re: [Ext2-devel] Re: Fall back io scheduler for 2.6.15?) Mingming Cao
2006-01-16 19:49                                                   ` Jens Axboe
2006-01-16 19:57                                                     ` Mingming Cao
2006-01-19 19:37                                                 ` Fall back io scheduler for 2.6.15? Nate Diller
2006-01-20  8:10                                                   ` Jens Axboe
2006-01-16 19:38                                               ` [Ext2-devel] " Mingming Cao
2005-04-29  6:28                               ` [PATCH] Reduce ext3 allocate-with-reservation lock latencies Mingming Cao

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20050405041359.GA17265@elte.hu \
    --to=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rlrevell@joe-job.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).