lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Aug]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] fs/proc: Move kfree outside pde_unload_lock
From
Date
On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 11:38 -0500, Nathan Zimmer wrote:
> This moves a kfree outside a spinlock to help scaling on larger (512 core)
> systems.
>
> I ran a simple test which just reads from /proc/cpuinfo.
> Lower is better, as you can see the worst case scenario is improved.
>
> baseline moved kfree
> tasks read-sec read-sec
> 1 0.0141 0.0141
> 2 0.0140 0.0140
> 4 0.0140 0.0141
> 8 0.0145 0.0145
> 16 0.0553 0.0548
> 32 0.1688 0.1622
> 64 0.5017 0.3856
> 128 1.7005 0.9710
> 256 5.2513 2.6519
> 512 8.0529 6.2976
>
> Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
> Acked-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@sgi.com>
> ---
> fs/proc/inode.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/proc/inode.c b/fs/proc/inode.c
> index 7ac817b..bf36266 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/inode.c
> @@ -403,9 +403,9 @@ static int proc_reg_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> release = pde->proc_fops->release;
> if (pdeo) {
> list_del(&pdeo->lh);
> - kfree(pdeo);
> }
> spin_unlock(&pde->pde_unload_lock);
> + kfree(pdeo);
>
> if (release)
> rv = release(inode, file);

Thats interesting, but if you really want this to fly, one RCU
conversion would be much better ;)

pde_users would be an atomic_t and you would avoid the spinlock
contention.





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-08-22 21:01    [W:0.099 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site