On (24/06/06 12:46), Chengming Zhou wrote: > >> Agree, I think we should try to improve locking scalability of zsmalloc. > >> I have some thoughts to share, no code or test data yet: > >> > >> 1. First, we can change the pool global lock to per-class lock, which > >> is more fine-grained. > > > > Commit c0547d0b6a4b6 "zsmalloc: consolidate zs_pool's migrate_lock > > and size_class's locks" [1] claimed no significant difference > > between class->lock and pool->lock. > > Ok, I haven't looked into the history much, that seems preparation of trying > to introduce reclaim in the zsmalloc? Not sure. But now with the reclaim code > in zsmalloc has gone, should we change back to the per-class lock? Which is Well, the point that commit made was that Nhat (and Johannes?) were unable to detect any impact of pool->lock on a variety of cases. So we went on with code simplification. > obviously more fine-grained than the pool lock. Actually, I have just done it, > will test to get some data later. Thanks, we'll need data on this. I'm happy to take the patch, but jumping back and forth between class->lock and pool->lock merely "for obvious reasons" is not what I'm extremely excited about.
