[lkml]   [2003]   [May]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.5.69-mm1
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 07:20:51AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Dipankar Sarma <>
> Provided there isn't a very heavy contention among readers for the
> spin_lock.
> Even if there are thousands of readers trying to get the lock
> at the same time, unless your hold time is significant these
> readers will merely thrash the cache getting the rwlock_t.
> And then thrash it again to release the rwlock_t.

And now ISTR that this is indeed the case, atleast going by
what we saw with "chat" microbenchmarks (fwiw :)).
Hold times weren't very high and most of the performance penalty
came from bouncing of the rwlock cacheline, which prompted us to
write a RCU-based patch for lockfree lookup from fd table.

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 13:35    [W:0.177 / U:0.692 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site