Searched hist:eb6ef3df (Results 1 – 3 of 3) sorted by relevance
| /openbmc/linux/fs/ |
| H A D | internal.h | eb6ef3df Thu Feb 19 11:19:35 CST 2015 Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru> trylock_super(): replacement for grab_super_passive()
I've noticed significant locking contention in memory reclaimer around
sb_lock inside grab_super_passive(). Grab_super_passive() is called from
two places: in icache/dcache shrinkers (function super_cache_scan) and
from writeback (function __writeback_inodes_wb). Both are required for
progress in memory allocator.
Grab_super_passive() acquires sb_lock to increment sb->s_count and check
sb->s_instances. It seems sb->s_umount locked for read is enough here:
super-block deactivation always runs under sb->s_umount locked for write.
Protecting super-block itself isn't a problem: in super_cache_scan() sb
is protected by shrinker_rwsem: it cannot be freed if its slab shrinkers
are still active. Inside writeback super-block comes from inode from bdi
writeback list under wb->list_lock.
This patch removes locking sb_lock and checks s_instances under s_umount:
generic_shutdown_super() unlinks it under sb->s_umount locked for write.
New variant is called trylock_super() and since it only locks semaphore,
callers must call up_read(&sb->s_umount) instead of drop_super(sb) when
they're done.
Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
eb6ef3df Thu Feb 19 11:19:35 CST 2015 Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru> trylock_super(): replacement for grab_super_passive()
I've noticed significant locking contention in memory reclaimer around
sb_lock inside grab_super_passive(). Grab_super_passive() is called from
two places: in icache/dcache shrinkers (function super_cache_scan) and
from writeback (function __writeback_inodes_wb). Both are required for
progress in memory allocator.
Grab_super_passive() acquires sb_lock to increment sb->s_count and check
sb->s_instances. It seems sb->s_umount locked for read is enough here:
super-block deactivation always runs under sb->s_umount locked for write.
Protecting super-block itself isn't a problem: in super_cache_scan() sb
is protected by shrinker_rwsem: it cannot be freed if its slab shrinkers
are still active. Inside writeback super-block comes from inode from bdi
writeback list under wb->list_lock.
This patch removes locking sb_lock and checks s_instances under s_umount:
generic_shutdown_super() unlinks it under sb->s_umount locked for write.
New variant is called trylock_super() and since it only locks semaphore,
callers must call up_read(&sb->s_umount) instead of drop_super(sb) when
they're done.
Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| H A D | super.c | eb6ef3df Thu Feb 19 11:19:35 CST 2015 Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru> trylock_super(): replacement for grab_super_passive()
I've noticed significant locking contention in memory reclaimer around
sb_lock inside grab_super_passive(). Grab_super_passive() is called from
two places: in icache/dcache shrinkers (function super_cache_scan) and
from writeback (function __writeback_inodes_wb). Both are required for
progress in memory allocator.
Grab_super_passive() acquires sb_lock to increment sb->s_count and check
sb->s_instances. It seems sb->s_umount locked for read is enough here:
super-block deactivation always runs under sb->s_umount locked for write.
Protecting super-block itself isn't a problem: in super_cache_scan() sb
is protected by shrinker_rwsem: it cannot be freed if its slab shrinkers
are still active. Inside writeback super-block comes from inode from bdi
writeback list under wb->list_lock.
This patch removes locking sb_lock and checks s_instances under s_umount:
generic_shutdown_super() unlinks it under sb->s_umount locked for write.
New variant is called trylock_super() and since it only locks semaphore,
callers must call up_read(&sb->s_umount) instead of drop_super(sb) when
they're done.
Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| H A D | fs-writeback.c | eb6ef3df Thu Feb 19 11:19:35 CST 2015 Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru> trylock_super(): replacement for grab_super_passive()
I've noticed significant locking contention in memory reclaimer around
sb_lock inside grab_super_passive(). Grab_super_passive() is called from
two places: in icache/dcache shrinkers (function super_cache_scan) and
from writeback (function __writeback_inodes_wb). Both are required for
progress in memory allocator.
Grab_super_passive() acquires sb_lock to increment sb->s_count and check
sb->s_instances. It seems sb->s_umount locked for read is enough here:
super-block deactivation always runs under sb->s_umount locked for write.
Protecting super-block itself isn't a problem: in super_cache_scan() sb
is protected by shrinker_rwsem: it cannot be freed if its slab shrinkers
are still active. Inside writeback super-block comes from inode from bdi
writeback list under wb->list_lock.
This patch removes locking sb_lock and checks s_instances under s_umount:
generic_shutdown_super() unlinks it under sb->s_umount locked for write.
New variant is called trylock_super() and since it only locks semaphore,
callers must call up_read(&sb->s_umount) instead of drop_super(sb) when
they're done.
Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
eb6ef3df Thu Feb 19 11:19:35 CST 2015 Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru> trylock_super(): replacement for grab_super_passive()
I've noticed significant locking contention in memory reclaimer around
sb_lock inside grab_super_passive(). Grab_super_passive() is called from
two places: in icache/dcache shrinkers (function super_cache_scan) and
from writeback (function __writeback_inodes_wb). Both are required for
progress in memory allocator.
Grab_super_passive() acquires sb_lock to increment sb->s_count and check
sb->s_instances. It seems sb->s_umount locked for read is enough here:
super-block deactivation always runs under sb->s_umount locked for write.
Protecting super-block itself isn't a problem: in super_cache_scan() sb
is protected by shrinker_rwsem: it cannot be freed if its slab shrinkers
are still active. Inside writeback super-block comes from inode from bdi
writeback list under wb->list_lock.
This patch removes locking sb_lock and checks s_instances under s_umount:
generic_shutdown_super() unlinks it under sb->s_umount locked for write.
New variant is called trylock_super() and since it only locks semaphore,
callers must call up_read(&sb->s_umount) instead of drop_super(sb) when
they're done.
Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|