Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > So the new lock that replaces the bkl here is a per superblock mutex You have to be very careful with this. Mutexes can be slower than spinlocks (and the new BKL is a spinlock) in some situations, they typically schedule much more etc., which can be costly. So this might have actually made it slower if you're unlucky. There were some experimental changes recently to make mutexes more behave like spinlocks, but I don't think they're fully performance equivalent. Better would be to use spinlocks if possible. I guess you just would need to find all sleep points and wrap them with lock dropping? > After this patch, reiserfs suffers from a slight performance regression (for now). That might be related to the scheduling behaviour. Watch the reschedule counters in vmstat 1 -Andi -- ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
