[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080825200509.GH6745@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:05:09 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] smp_call_function: use rwlocks on queues rather
than rcu
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:44:03AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > But I am not sure that this gets the grace periods to go fast enough to
> > cover Christoph's use case -- he seems to be in a "faster is better"
> > space rather than in an "at least this fast" space. Still, it would
> > likely help in some important cases.
>
> I think there was an AIM9 regression in the close/open tests when the struct
> file was switched to RCU. That test could be run with various intervals to
> figure out if a shorter RCU period is beneficial and how short an RCU period
> is needed to avoid the regression.
Well, with some luck, I can get an RCU implementation that allows the
grace-period duration to be varied, which would allow someone to check
the AIM9 regression.
Thanx, Paul
--
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