[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090106223150.GF6741@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:31:50 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Morreale <pmorreale@...ell.com>,
Sven Dietrich <SDietrich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC]: mutex: adaptive spin
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:44:35PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 13:42 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Preemptable RCU needs to be faster. Got it -- and might have a way
> > to do it by eliminating the irq disabling and cutting way back on the
> > number of operations that must be performed. It would probably still
> > be necessary to access the task structure.
> >
> > Or is something other than the raw performance of rcu_read_lock() and
> > rcu_read_unlock() at issue here?
>
> With Linus' mutex_spin_or_schedule() function the whole - keeping
> owner's task_struct alive issue goes away,.. now if only the thing would
> boot...
Cool! And I can relate to the "if only the thing would boot" part. ;-)
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