[lkml]   [2002]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 8-CPU (SMP) #s for lockfree rtcache
Hi Robert,

On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 08:49:58AM -0700, Robert Love wrote:
> > Well, the last time RCU was discussed, Linus said that he would
> > like to see someplace where RCU clearly helps.
> I agree the numbers posted are nice, but I remain skeptical like Linus.
> Sure, the locking overhead is nearly gone in the profiled function where
> RCU is used. But the overhead has just been _moved_ to wherever the RCU
> work is now done. Any benchmark needs to include the damage done there,
> too.

Have you looked at the rt_rcu patch ? Where do you think there
is overhead compared to what route cache alread does ? In my
profiles, rcu routines and kernel mechanisms that it uses
don't show high up. If you have any suggestions, then I can
do an investigation.

> I also balk at implicit locking...

I agree that it is better to keep things simple and RCU isn't a
replacement for locking. However the route cache hash table with
refcount is a relatively simpler use of RCU and since it has
benefits, we shouldn't shy away from using it if it is useful.

Dipankar Sarma <>
Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Lab, Bangalore, India.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:26    [W:0.057 / U:8.024 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site