On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 05:08:04PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 15:18 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 07:27:23AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > > This patchset attempts to reduce the amount of contention we impose > > > on the hugetlb_instantiation_mutex by replacing the global mutex with > > > a table of mutexes, selected based on a hash. The original discussion can > > > be found here: http://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/12/428 > > > > Hello, Davidlohr. > > > > I recently sent a patchset which remove the hugetlb_instantiation_mutex > > entirely ('mm, hugetlb: remove a hugetlb_instantiation_mutex'). > > This patchset can be found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/29/54 > > > > If possible, could you review it and test it whether your problem is > > disappered with it or not? > > This patchset applies on top of https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/22/96 > "[PATCH v2 00/10] mm, hugetlb: clean-up and possible bug fix", right? > > AFAIK those changes are the ones Andrew picked up a few weeks ago and > are now in linux-next, right? I was able to apply those just fine, but > couldn't apply your 'remove a hugetlb_instantiation_mutex series' (IIRC > pach 1/18 failed). I guess you'll send out a v2 anyway so I'll wait > until then. > > In any case I'm not seeing an actual performance issue with the > hugetlb_instantiation_mutex, all I noticed was that under large DB > workloads that make use of hugepages, such as Oracle, this lock becomes > quite hot during the first few minutes of startup, which makes sense in > the fault path it is contended. So I'll try out your patches, but, in > this particular case, I just cannot compare with the lock vs without the > lock situations. Okay. I just want to know that lock contention is reduced by my patches in the first few minutes of startup. I will send v2 soon. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>