[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4802E93E.4090205@bull.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 07:18:54 +0200
From: Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: efault@....de, manfred@...orfullife.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, xemul@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] Re: Scalability requirements for sysv ipc
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 18:17 +0200, Nadia.Derbey@...l.net wrote:
>
>>Here is finally the ipc ridr-based implementation I was talking about last
>>week (see http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/4/208).
>>I couldn't avoid much of the code duplication, but at least made things
>>incremental.
>>
>>Does somebody now a test suite that exists for the idr API, that I could
>>run on this new api?
>>
>>Mike, can you try to run it on your victim: I had such a hard time building
>>this patch, that I couldn't re-run the test on my 8-core with this new
>>version. So the last results I have are for 2.6.25-rc3-mm1.
>>
>>Also, I think a careful review should be done to avoid introducing yet other
>>problems :-(
>
>
> Why duplicate the whole thing, when we converted the Radix tree to be
> RCU safe we did it in-place. Is there a reason this is not done for idr?
>
>
>
I did that because I wanted to go fast and try to fix the performance
problem we have with sysV ipc's. I didn't want to introduce (yet other)
regressions in the code that uses idr's today and that works well ;-)
May be in the future if this rcu based api appears to be ok, we can
replace one with the other?
Regards,
Nadia
--
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