lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: BKL removal
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 11:06:32PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
>>The thing being, if you are already contended you are playing "I'll release
>>CPU now" vs. "I'll spin in hope that contender will go away right now".
>>
>>IOW, it's a win only if you get contention often and for short intervals.
>>Which is a very good indication that something is rotten with your locking
>>scheme. Like, say it, having lost the control over the amount of locks
>>as the result of brainde^Woverenthusiastic belief that fine-grained ==
>>good. With everything that follows from that...
>
> So let's get some numbers. It really shouldn't be hard to make our
> current semaphores spin a little before they sleep. If we get some
> numbers showing it does help then either we need this change in mainline
> or we need to fix our locking.

Sounds good to me. Do you have any code, or a workload that you know
will trigger it? I have a feeling that Specweb will probably show
this behavior, but I want something simpler.

--
Dave Hansen
haveblue@us.ibm.com

-
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 13:22    [W:0.090 / U:2.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site