Re: [PATCH] 6/6 cacheline align files_lock

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 07:41:42AM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> Ironically, the latest scheduler changes *seem* to get rid of about
> 57% of the cost of it .... I have *no* idea why. Diffprofile between
> 64 and 64-bk is just wierd:
>       7222    45.1% page_remove_rmap
>        521    18.4% __copy_from_user_ll
>        422     8.9% __copy_to_user_ll
>        334   105.4% __wake_up
>        248    48.5% pte_alloc_one
>        243   205.9% pgd_ctor
>        211     4.6% vm_enough_memory
>        198     6.3% zap_pte_range
>        179    29.3% kmem_cache_free
>        118    12.2% clear_page_tables
>         99    13.2% __pte_chain_free
>         84     6.1% do_no_page
>         76     6.6% release_pages
>         74     9.0% strnlen_user
>         67     5.6% free_hot_cold_page
>         65    14.4% copy_page_range

The high count for pgd_ctor() is bizarre. It fiddles with less data and
should be called less often than pmd_ctor() or pte_alloc_one(), both of
which take the cache hit for constructing full pages, and pgd_ctor()
can't really hope to do better. This otherwise appears to be in order
of cacheline bounciness. DCU_MISS_OUTSTANDING and IFU_MEM_STALL?

page_remove_rmap() as usual takes top position b/c of its long list
walks; I think you've got something brewing for that already.

-- wli