lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch] lockless, scalable get_pid(), for_each_process() elimination, 2.5.35-BK
    On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 12:11:30PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > so i think the most we could get is to actually eliminate the pidhash and
    > use the idtag hash for it. This would concentrate all the performance
    > efforts on the idtag hash.

    I eventually had special-case handling of IDTAG_PID so that it did not
    use idtags, but chained tasks directly, and removing the pidhash as goals.


    On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 12:11:30PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > another, locking improvement is possible as well:
    > - the idtag spinlock should be eliminated, we can reuse the tasklist lock
    > for it - in the exit and fork path we hold it already. This also means
    > we can walk an ID list by read-locking the tasklist lock.
    > the idtag spinlock is already superfluous i think, because the idtag task
    > list is only safely walked if we read-lock the task list. So it's not like
    > anyone could hash in a new idtag while we walk the list.
    > What do you think?

    ISTR the idtag_lock was for cases where the hashtable was modified
    while the tasklist_lock was only held for reading. Basically, once
    those are resolved, the idtag_lock goes away.


    Cheers,
    Bill
    -
    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 13:03    [W:0.021 / U:61.872 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site