[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1308156337.2171.23.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:45:37 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>,
"Shi, Alex" <alex.shi@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: REGRESSION: Performance regressions from switching
anon_vma->lock to mutex
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 09:18 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> And in general it looks like blind conversion from spinlock to mutex
> is a bad idea right now.
For 4 socket machines, maybe. On 2 sockets I cannot reproduce anything.
I wonder if its the fairness thing, the mutex spinners aren't fifo fair
like the ticket locks are. It could be significant with larger socket
count since their cacheline arbitration is more sucky.
--
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