[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 09:23:56PM +1100, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > When you have two CPUs contending on common paths it is better to do:
> > [ spinlock stuff ]
> Andi, if the lock_kernel() is removed then the first time the CPUs will butt heads is on a semaphore. This is much more expensive.
> I bet if acquire_fl_sem() and release_fl_sem() are turned into lock_kernel()/unlock_kernel() then the scalability will come back.

To test your theory it would be enough to watch context switch rates in top

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:41    [W:0.153 / U:0.588 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site