![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 03:15:33PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > > > * There is a rw semaphore that is locked for read for nearly all operations > > and locked for write only rarely. However locking for read causes cache line > > pingpong on SMP systems. Do you have an idea how to make it better? [ . . . ] > (Seqlocks could be changed to drop the first requirement, although it > could cause some serious starvation issues, so I'm not sure it's a good > idea. For RCU the atomic nature is pretty much designed-in.) I can't help putting in a plug for SRCU, which is in the 2.6.19-rc series, and which allows readers to sleep. (http://lwn.net/Articles/202847/) SRCU allows readers and writers to run concurrently (as do all forms of RCU). If this is a problem, it might be worth looking into Gautham Shenoy's reader-writer lock built on top of RCU. (A version for hotplug may be found at http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/26/73.) This approach keeps the reader-writer-lock semantics, but gets rid of cache thrashing. That said, writers have to wait for a grace period. And as Linus pointed out, if you have disk I/O involved, you probably won't notice normal reader-writer-lock overhead. Thanx, Paul - 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: 2006-11-03 21:03 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||