Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)

2000-11-03 Thread Andrew Morton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Andrew Morton writes: > > This patch is a moderate rewrite of __wake_up_common. I'd be > > interested in seeing how much difference it makes to the > > performance of Apache when the file-locking serialisation is > > disabled. > > - It implements last-in/first-o

Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)

2000-10-28 Thread Andrew Morton
Andrew Morton wrote: > > I think it's more expedient at this time to convert > acquire_fl_sem/release_fl_sem into lock_kernel/unlock_kernel > (so we _can_ sleep) and to fix the above alleged deadlock > via the creation of __posix_unblock_lock() I agree with me. Could you please test the scalabi

Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)

2000-10-28 Thread Jeff Garzik
Andrew Morton wrote: > --- linux-2.4.0-test10-pre5/fs/locks.c Tue Oct 24 21:34:13 2000 > +++ linux-akpm/fs/locks.c Sun Oct 29 02:31:10 2000 > @@ -125,10 +125,9 @@ > #include > #include > > -DECLARE_MUTEX(file_lock_sem); > - > -#define acquire_fl_sem() down(&file_lock_sem) > -#def

Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)

2000-10-28 Thread Andi Kleen
On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 02:46:14AM +1100, Andrew Morton wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Change the following two macros: > > acquire_fl_sem()->lock_kernel() > > release_fl_sem()->unlock_kernel() > > then > > 5192 Req/s @8cpu is got. It is same as test8 within fluctuation

Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)

2000-10-28 Thread Andrew Morton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Change the following two macros: > acquire_fl_sem()->lock_kernel() > release_fl_sem()->unlock_kernel() > then > 5192 Req/s @8cpu is got. It is same as test8 within fluctuation. hmm.. BKL increases scalability. News at 11. The big question is: why i

Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)

2000-10-27 Thread Jeff V. Merkey
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 03:13:33AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote: > > > On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote: > > > > > Linux has lots of n-sqared linear list searches all over the place, and > > there's a ton of spots I've seen it go linear by doing fine grained > > manipulation of lock_ke

Re: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9

2000-10-25 Thread Mark Hahn
> > 8cpu2193| 58 22114 946099 52 39 > ^ > > This is pretty insane and is definately a bug which should > be fixed. I'll search the source for "suspicious" changes > and try to come up with a patch you can

Re: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9

2000-10-25 Thread Rik van Riel
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I found very odd performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9 on a large SMP > server, and I want some clues to investigate it. > > The workload is WebBench, > Machine is: > 8way PII-Xeon 450MHz 2MB cache with Profusion chip-set, > 1GB Main memor