-
由 Nick Piggin 提交于
Looks like locking can be optimised quite a lot. Increase lock widths slightly so lo_lock is taken fewer times per request. Also it was quite trivial to cover lo_pending with that lock, and remove the atomic requirement. This also makes memory ordering explicitly correct, which is nice (not that I particularly saw any mem ordering bugs). Test was reading 4 250MB files in parallel on ext2-on-tmpfs filesystem (1K block size, 4K page size). System is 2 socket Xeon with HT (4 thread). intel:/home/npiggin# umount /dev/loop0 ; mount /dev/loop0 /mnt/loop ; /usr/bin/time ./mtloop.sh Before: 0.24user 5.51system 0:02.84elapsed 202%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 0.19user 5.52system 0:02.88elapsed 198%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 0.19user 5.57system 0:02.89elapsed 198%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 0.22user 5.51system 0:02.90elapsed 197%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 0.19user 5.44system 0:02.91elapsed 193%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k After: 0.07user 2.34system 0:01.68elapsed 143%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 0.06user 2.37system 0:01.68elapsed 144%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 0.06user 2.39system 0:01.68elapsed 145%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 0.06user 2.36system 0:01.68elapsed 144%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 0.06user 2.42system 0:01.68elapsed 147%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k Signed-off-by: NNick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
35a82d1a