forked from luck/tmp_suning_uos_patched
fs/epoll: drop ovflist branch prediction
The ep->ovflist is a secondary ready-list to temporarily store events that might occur when doing sproc without holding the ep->wq.lock. This accounts for every time we check for ready events and also send events back to userspace; both callbacks, particularly the latter because of copy_to_user, can account for a non-trivial time. As such, the unlikely() check to see if the pointer is being used, seems both misleading and sub-optimal. In fact, we go to an awful lot of trouble to sync both lists, and populating the ovflist is far from an uncommon scenario. For example, profiling a concurrent epoll_wait(2) benchmark, with CONFIG_PROFILE_ANNOTATED_BRANCHES shows that for a two threads a 33% incorrect rate was seen; and when incrementally increasing the number of epoll instances (which is used, for example for multiple queuing load balancing models), up to a 90% incorrect rate was seen. Similarly, by deleting the prediction, 3% throughput boost was seen across incremental threads. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181108051006.18751-4-dave@stgolabs.net Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de> Reviewed-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
4e0982a005
commit
76699a67f3
|
@ -1153,7 +1153,7 @@ static int ep_poll_callback(wait_queue_entry_t *wait, unsigned mode, int sync, v
|
|||
* semantics). All the events that happen during that period of time are
|
||||
* chained in ep->ovflist and requeued later on.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (unlikely(ep->ovflist != EP_UNACTIVE_PTR)) {
|
||||
if (ep->ovflist != EP_UNACTIVE_PTR) {
|
||||
if (epi->next == EP_UNACTIVE_PTR) {
|
||||
epi->next = ep->ovflist;
|
||||
ep->ovflist = epi;
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user