Re: [PATCH] VFS: br_write_lock locks on possible CPUs other thanonline CPUs

[Al Viro]

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 09:17:57AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:

> The costly operations here are the atomics and nothing really changes
> for them. So I don't expect any measurable difference.
> 
> I actually have an idea to remove them for the common case, but not in 
> that patchkit or cycle :)
> 
> I can run a ftrace if you want, but I expect any difference to be below
> the measurement inaccuracy.

What I'm concerned with is not the cost of extra dereference per se; it's
more about cacheline bouncing - note that with this fix in place you'll
end up with spinlock in the same cacheline as the pointer to per-cpu stuff.
Hell knows; it might not matter at all, since we take it only for
br_write_lock() (and definitely rare CPU up/down), but still, I'd like to
see the data.  In any case, that's not -stable material.  The race fix,
OTOH, is...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/