[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <4C2B24B30200007800008C07@vpn.id2.novell.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:04:19 +0100
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
To: "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>, <mingo@...e.hu>,
<tglx@...utronix.de>, "Ky Srinivasan" <KSrinivasan@...ell.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4, v2] x86: enlightenment for ticket spin locks -
Xen implementation
>>> On 30.06.10 at 10:56, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 09:52 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > why is that a rwlock?, those things are useless.
>>
>> Because potentially each CPU's lock gets acquired for reading during
>> unlock, while only the locking CPU's one needs to be acquired for
>> writing during lock.
>
> Can you say: scalability nightmare? but then its Xen code so who cares..
Yes, this is a scalability problem. And yes, I'm open to suggestions.
But no, I didn't have any better idea myself. And for the time being
I don't foresee this to be a problem, as VMs tend to have much fewer
CPUs than physical machines. And I think a performance win of 25%
justifies a sub-optimal implementation (with the perspective of people
smarter than me replacing it with a better one over time).
Jan
--
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