[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100324085511.GJ4920@sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 03:55:11 -0500
From: Robin Holt <holt@....com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: holt@....com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...il.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
x86@...nel.org, Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/2] x86,pat: Reduce contention on the memtype_lock -V4
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 03:16:14AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> holt@....com writes:
>
> > Tracking memtype on x86 uses a single global spin_lock for either reading
> > or changing the memory type. This includes changes made to page flags
> > which is perfectly parallel.
> >
> > Part one of the patchset makes the page-based tracking use cmpxchg
> > without a need for a lock.
> >
> > Part two of the patchset converts the spin_lock into a read/write lock.
>
> I'm curious: in what workloads did you see contention?
>
> For any scalability patches it would be always good to have a description
> of the workload.
It was a job using xpmem (an out of tree kernel module) which uses
vm_insert_pfn to establish ptes. The scalability issues were shown
in the first patch. I do not have any test which shows a performance
difference with the spin_lock to rw_lock conversion.
Robin
--
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