[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <p733azz16vh.fsf@bingen.suse.de>
Date: 08 Jul 2007 13:18:10 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: queued spinlock code and results
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> writes:
> I made some tests of the queued spinlock code using userspace test code on
> 64-bit processors. I believe the xadd based code no longer has any theoretical
> memory ordering problems.
Linus, the background of this is that on 8 socket Opteron systems
the current spinlocks can become very unfair to the point of severe
starvation. These boxes are becomming more common.
> The threaded results also attempt to have an unfairness count, which is the
> max number of times in a row that a lock is acquired, when all other threads
> are also executing in the loop -- the reason xadd for example is not always
> 0 there is because the other threads may not have reached the lock before
> the current thread was able to get it several times (eg. if an interrupt
> comes in, this could happen).
Interesting. I was also thinking about switching the lock types
at boot time. Since all the lock calls are out of line this would
be reasonably easy.
I would say the main drawback of switchable and queued locks
would be also that they require a larger spinlock_t thus increasing
cache usage
e.g. it would probably hurt for the large spinlock tables used
by TCP, but then those should be fixed anyways to be smaller.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists