[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20071219124513.9853.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:09:10 +0900
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
lee.shermerhorn@...com, Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@...com>
Subject: Re: [patch 02/20] make the inode i_mmap_lock a reader/writer lock
Hi
> > rmap: try_to_unmap_file() required new cond_resched_rwlock().
> > To reduce code duplication, I recast cond_resched_lock() as a
> > [static inline] wrapper around reworked cond_sched_lock() =>
> > __cond_resched_lock(void *lock, int type).
> > New cond_resched_rwlock() implemented as another wrapper.
>
> Reader/writer locks really suck in terms of fairness and starvation,
> especially when the read-side is common and frequent. (also, single
> threaded performance of the read-side is worse).
Agreed.
rwlock got bad performance some case. (especially on many cpu machine)
if many cpu grab read-lock on and off on many cpu system.
then at least 1 cpu always grab read lock and the cpu of waiting write-lock
never get lock.
threrefore, rwlock often make performance weakness of stress.
I want know testcase for this patch and run it.
Do you have it?
/kosaki
--
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