lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: kernel lock contention and scalability

Manfred Spraul [manfred@colorfullife.com] wrote:
>
> > lock contention work would be appreciated. I'm aware of timer scalability
> > work ongoing at people.redhat.com/mingo/scalable-timers, but is anyone
> > working on reducing sem_ids contention?
>
> Is that really a problem?
> The contention is high, but the actual lost time is quite small.

I agree it isn't a major performance problem under that workload. But, I
thought since the contention was high that other workloads which may
utilize it more might have shown it to be a significant problem.

> I've attached 2 changes that might reduce the contention, but it's just
> an idea, completely untested.

Thanks for the insight into the sempahore subsystem and the suggested fixes.

--
Jonathan Lahr
IBM Linux Technology Center
Beaverton, Oregon
lahr@us.ibm.com
503-578-3385

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site