[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 0/4] Fix a crash when block device is read and block size is changed at the same time
- From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka redhat com>
- To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer redhat com>
- Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe kernel dk>, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange redhat com>, Jan Kara <jack suse cz>, Eric Dumazet <eric dumazet gmail com>, linux-kernel vger kernel org, dm-devel redhat com, Alexander Viro <viro zeniv linux org uk>, kosaki motohiro jp fujitsu com, linux-fsdevel vger kernel org, lwoodman redhat com, "Alasdair G. Kergon" <agk redhat com>
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 0/4] Fix a crash when block device is read and block size is changed at the same time
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:55:29 -0400 (EDT)
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka redhat com> writes:
>
> > Hi Jeff
> >
> > Thanks for testing.
> >
> > It would be interesting ... what happens if you take the patch 3, leave
> > "struct percpu_rw_semaphore bd_block_size_semaphore" in "struct
> > block_device", but remove any use of the semaphore from fs/block_dev.c? -
> > will the performance be like unpatched kernel or like patch 3? It could be
> > that the change in the alignment affects performance on your CPU too, just
> > differently than on my CPU.
>
> I'll give it a try and report back.
>
> > What is the CPU model that you used for testing?
>
> http://ark.intel.com/products/53570/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E7-2860-%2824M-Cache-2_26-GHz-6_40-GTs-Intel-QPI%29
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff
BTW. why did you use just 4 processes? - the processor has 10 cores and 20
threads (so theoretically, you could run 20 processes bound on a single
numa node). Were the results not stable with more than 4 processes?
Mikulas
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]