On 10/09/2017 11:40 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 05-10-17 14:43:26, Waiman Long wrote:
>> The dlock list needs one list for each of the CPUs available. However,
>> for sibling CPUs, they are sharing the L2 and probably L1 caches
>> too. As a result, there is not much to gain in term of avoiding
>> cacheline contention while increasing the cacheline footprint of the
>> L1/L2 caches as separate lists may need to be in the cache.
>>
>> This patch makes all the sibling CPUs share the same list, thus
>> reducing the number of lists that need to be maintained in each
>> dlock list without having any noticeable impact on performance. It
>> also improves dlock list iteration performance as fewer lists need
>> to be iterated.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ...
>
>> @@ -118,7 +156,7 @@ bool dlock_lists_empty(struct dlock_list_heads *dlist)
>> {
>> int idx;
>>
>> - for (idx = 0; idx < nr_cpu_ids; idx++)
>> + for (idx = 0; idx < nr_dlock_lists; idx++)
>> if (!list_empty(&dlist->heads[idx].list))
>> return false;
>> return true;
>> @@ -207,7 +245,7 @@ struct dlock_list_node *__dlock_list_next_list(struct dlock_list_iter *iter)
>> /*
>> * Try next list
>> */
>> - if (++iter->index >= nr_cpu_ids)
>> + if (++iter->index >= nr_dlock_lists)
>> return NULL; /* All the entries iterated */
>>
>> if (list_empty(&iter->head[iter->index].list))
> Why these two do not need a similar treatment as alloc_dlist_heads()?
>
> Honza
>
I am aware that there is one vfs superblock allocation before
nr_dlock_list is inited. However, I don't believe a list emptiness test
or an iteration will happen that early in the boot sequence. Maybe I
should put a BUG_ON(!nr_dlock_list) test in those function just to be sure.
Cheers,
Longman
