On Thu, 8 May 2008, Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 10:23 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 06:09:34AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > So the only likely things I can see are: > > > > > > - file locks > > > - fasync > > > > I've wanted to fix file locks for a while. Here's a first attempt. > > It was done quickly, so I concede that it may well have bugs in it. > > I found (and fixed) one with LTP. > > > > It takes *no account* of nfsd, nor remote filesystems. We need to have > > a serious discussion about their requirements. > > I tested it on 8-core stoakley. aim7 result becomes 23% worse than the one of > pure 2.6.26-rc1. Ouch. That's really odd. The BKL->spinlock conversion looks really obvious, so it shouldn't be that noticeably slower. The *one* difference is that the BKL has the whole "you can take it recursively and you can sleep without dropping it because the scheduler will drop it for you" thing. The spinlock conversion changed all of that into explicit "drop and retake" locks, and maybe that causes some issues. But 23% worse? That sounds really odd/extreme. Can you do a oprofile run or something? Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
