[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [ltt-dev] Re: [PATCH] LTT for 2.5.38 1/9: Core infrastructure
     > > [...] On a technical note: a cache-line ping-ponging is bad - a global
    > > spinlock is horrendous. They're different - the lock-less MP scheme gets
    > > rid of them both.
    > (on the contrary - a global spinlock is bad for exactly that reason,
    > because it causes a cacheline ping-pong. So if two CPUs are trying to
    > write trace events at once, you'll get the same effect as if they were
    > using a global spinlock.)
    > Ingo

    Just want to be clear that we are going to a per-CPU buffer scheme.

    However, for sake of argument, the above is still not true. A global lock
    has a different (worse) performance problem then the lock-free atomic
    operation even given a global queue. The difference is 1) the Linux global
    lock is very expensive and interacts with potential other processes, and 2)
    you have to hold the lock for the entire duration of logging the event;
    with the atomic operation you are finished once you've reserved you space.
    If you didn't use the expensive Linux global lock and just a global lock,
    you could be interrupted in the middle of holding the lock and performance
    would fall off the map.


    Robert Wisniewski
    The K42 MP OS Project
    Advanced Operating Systems
    Scalable Parallel Systems
    IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

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

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [W:0.020 / U:14.320 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site