From: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
To: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/1] fs: remove retry loop
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:46:57 +0206 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200617104058.14902-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de> (raw)
Hello,
This patch removes the last retry loop in VFS. It is partially
reverting
commit d3ef3d7351cc ("fs: mnt_want_write speedup")
by re-introducing per-cpu spinlocks for each mount. The patch
includes benchmark results in the diffstat section to show that the
previous optimization work is not undone.
I would have liked to use a percpu_rw_semaphore per mount instead
of the many spinlocks. However, percpu_rw_semaphore can sleep, which
is a problem for sb_prepare_remount_readonly() since it needs to
take the spinlock in @mount_lock in order to iterate @sb->s_mounts.
Perhaps using a mutex to sychronize @sb->s_mounts is an option. I am
not sure. That is why this is an RFC.
I am suggesting this partial revert because it removes the retry
loop and does not show any obvious negative benchmark effects.
John Ogness (1):
fs/namespace.c: use spinlock instead of busy loop
fs/mount.h | 7 +++
fs/namespace.c | 118 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
2 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
--
2.20.1
next reply other threads:[~2020-06-17 10:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-17 10:40 John Ogness [this message]
2020-06-17 10:40 ` [RFC PATCH 1/1] fs/namespace.c: use spinlock instead of busy loop John Ogness
2020-06-17 11:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-06-17 11:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-06-17 12:09 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
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=20200617104058.14902-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de \
--to=john.ogness@linutronix.de \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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).