[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/5 - V2] locks: avoid thundering-herd wake-ups
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 01:17:14PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09 2018, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:50:58AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> >> You're good at this game!
> >
> > Everybody's got to have a hobby, mine is pathological posix locking
> > cases....
> >
> >> So, because a locker with the same "owner" gets a free pass, you can
> >> *never* say that any lock which conflicts with A also conflicts with B,
> >> as a lock with the same owner as B will never conflict with B, even
> >> though it conflicts with A.
> >>
> >> I think there is still value in having the tree, but when a waiter is
> >> attached under a new blocker, we need to walk the whole tree beneath the
> >> waiter and detach/wake anything that is not blocked by the new blocker.
> >
> > If you're walking the whole tree every time then it might as well be a
> > flat list, I think?
> The advantage of a tree is that it keeps over-lapping locks closer
> together.
> For it to make a difference you would need a load where lots of threads
> were locking several different small ranges, and other threads were
> locking large ranges that cover all the small ranges.

OK, I'm not sure I understand, but I'll give another look at the next

> I doubt this is common, but it doesn't seem as strange as other things
> I've seen in the wild.
> The other advantage, of course, is that I've already written the code,
> and I like it.
> Maybe I'll do a simple-list version, then a patch to convert that to the
> clever-tree version, and we can then have something concrete to assess.

That might help, thanks.


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-10 17:48    [W:0.054 / U:30.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site