[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100413200527.GG5683@laptop>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 06:05:27 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
zach.brown@...cle.com, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ipc semaphores: reduce ipc_lock contention in
semtimedop
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 03:38:01PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 05:25:51AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > I didn't notice anything that should make that go faster?
>
> Since I'm avoiding the ipc lock while operating on the array, it'll help
> any workload that hits on two or more semaphores in the array at
> once.
Yeah, I don't think SAP did that, significantly to matter. Possibly
some (aside from Oracle of course), do though.
> > Yes, with such a workload, using semops is basically legacy and simple
> > mutexes should work better. So I'm not outright against improving sysv
> > sem performance for more complex cases where nothing else we have works
> > as well.
> >
>
> I'm not in a hurry to overhaul a part of the kernel that has been stable
> for a long time. But it really needs some love I think. I'll have more
> numbers from a tpc run later this week.
Yep, I'm not against it. "industry standard benchmark" numbers would
be great.
I do think we need to be really careful with semantics though. The
API's been around for long enough that it is going to have been
(ab)used in every way possible :)
--
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