lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v11 0/4] Introducing a queue read/write lock implementation

* Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com> wrote:

> How about making the selection of MCS or ticket queuing either user
> configurable or depending on the setting of NR_CPUS, NUMA, etc?

No!

There are lots of disadvantages to adding such CONFIG_NUMA Kconfig
variants for locking primitives:

- an doubling of the test matrix

- an doubling of the review matrix and a halving of effective review
capacity: we've just about go the capacity to review and validate
patches like this. Splitting out a 'only NUMA cares' variant is a
non-starter really.

- but most importantly, there's absolutely no reason to not be fast
on 128 CPU systems in the low contended case either! Sacrificing
the low contended case with 'on 128 CPU systems it is the contended
path that matters' is an idiotic argument.

Essentially the only area were we allow Kconfig dependencies are
unyielding physical forces: such as lots of CPUs needing a wider CPU
mask.

As Peter said it, the right solution is to fix the contended case. If
that also happens to speed up or better organize the uncondended code
then that's good, but it should not make it worse.

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-02 11:01    [W:0.084 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site