lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [BENCHMARKS] 2.6.4 vs 2.6.4-mm1


Ingo Molnar wrote:

>* Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>volanomark (MPS):
>>This one starts getting huge mmap_sem contention at 150+ coming
>>from futexes. Don't know what is taking the mmap_sem for writing.
>>Maybe just brk or mmap.
>>
>
>are you sure it's down_write() contention? down_read() can create
>contention just as much, simply due to the fact that hundreds of threads
>and a dozen CPUs are pounding in on the same poor lock.
>
>

No I'm not sure actually, it could be just read lock
contention. IIRC it was all coming from the semaphore's
spinlock, in up_read...

>i do think there should be a rw-semaphore variant that is per-cpu for
>the read path. (This would also fix the 4:4 threading overhead.)
>
>

That would be interesting, yes. I have (somewhere) a patch
that wakes up the semaphore's waiters outside its spinlock.
I think that only gave about 5% or so improvement though.

-
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 14:01    [W:0.068 / U:1.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site