linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, riel@redhat.com,
	mgorman@suse.de, aswin@hp.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] mm: i_mmap_mutex to rwsem
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 16:54:51 -0700 (PDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.11.1406021649570.5748@eggly.anvils> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1401741061.5185.9.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>

On Mon, 2 Jun 2014, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 13:08 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 May 2014 19:20:15 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 20:33 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > > This patchset extends the work started by Ingo Molnar in late 2012,
> > > > optimizing the anon-vma mutex lock, converting it from a exclusive mutex
> > > > to a rwsem, and sharing the lock for read-only paths when walking the
> > > > the vma-interval tree. More specifically commits 5a505085 and 4fc3f1d6.
> > > > 
> > > > The i_mmap_mutex has similar responsibilities with the anon-vma, protecting
> > > > file backed pages. Therefore we can use similar locking techniques: covert
> > > > the mutex to a rwsem and share the lock when possible.
> > > > 
> > > > With the new optimistic spinning property we have in rwsems, we no longer
> > > > take a hit in performance when using this lock, and we can therefore
> > > > safely do the conversion. Tests show no throughput regressions in aim7 or
> > > > pgbench runs, and we can see gains from sharing the lock, in disk workloads
> > > > ~+15% for over 1000 users on a 8-socket Westmere system.
> > > > 
> > > > This patchset applies on linux-next-20140522.
> > >
> > > ping? Andrew any chance of getting this in -next?
> > 
> > (top-posting repaired)
> > 
> > It was a bit late for 3.16 back on May 26, when you said "I will dig
> > deeper (probably for 3.17 now)".  So, please take another look at the
> > patch factoring and let's get this underway for -rc1.
> 
> Ok, so I meant that I'd dig deeper for the additional sharing
> opportunities (which I've found a few as Hugh correctly suggested). So
> those eventual patches could come later. 
> 
> But I see no reason for *this* patchset to be delayed, as even if it
> gets to be 3.17 material, I'd still very much want to have the same
> patch factoring I have now. I think its the correct way to handle lock
> transitioning for both correctness and bisectability.

I'd be glad to see it go into 3.16 if it works as well as advertized.
And if you're attached to your current 2/5, fine, do stick with that.
But please do a proper job on your 3/5, instead of just aping how the
anon case worked out.

Hugh

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2014-06-02 23:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-05-23  3:33 Davidlohr Bueso
2014-05-23  3:33 ` [PATCH 1/5] mm,fs: introduce helpers around i_mmap_mutex Davidlohr Bueso
2014-05-23 17:16   ` Rik van Riel
2014-05-23  3:33 ` [PATCH 2/5] mm: use new helper functions around the i_mmap_mutex Davidlohr Bueso
2014-05-23 17:16   ` Rik van Riel
2014-05-23  3:33 ` [PATCH 3/5] mm: convert i_mmap_mutex to rwsem Davidlohr Bueso
2014-05-23 17:33   ` Rik van Riel
2014-05-23  3:33 ` [PATCH 4/5] mm/rmap: share the i_mmap_rwsem Davidlohr Bueso
2014-05-23 18:35   ` Rik van Riel
2014-05-26 19:35   ` Hugh Dickins
2014-05-26 20:48     ` Davidlohr Bueso
2014-05-23  3:33 ` [PATCH 5/5] mm: rename leftover i_mmap_mutex Davidlohr Bueso
2014-05-23 18:36   ` Rik van Riel
2014-05-30  2:20 ` [PATCH 0/5] mm: i_mmap_mutex to rwsem Davidlohr Bueso
2014-06-02 20:08   ` Andrew Morton
2014-06-02 20:31     ` Davidlohr Bueso
2014-06-02 23:54       ` Hugh Dickins [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-06-25  0:21 Davidlohr Bueso

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=alpine.LSU.2.11.1406021649570.5748@eggly.anvils \
    --to=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=aswin@hp.com \
    --cc=davidlohr@hp.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=riel@redhat.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