[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FA2EA08.9030109@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 16:26:48 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: rajman mekaco <rajman.mekaco@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mlock: split the shmlock_user_lock spinlock into
per user_struct spinlock
On 05/03/2012 03:31 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 23:04 +0530, rajman mekaco wrote:
>> The user_shm_lock and user_shm_unlock functions use a single global
>> spinlock for protecting the user->locked_shm.
>
> Are you very sure its only protecting user state? This changelog doesn't
> convince me you've gone through everything and found it good.
>
>> This is an overhead for multiple CPUs calling this code even if they
>> are having different user_struct.
>>
>> Remove the global shmlock_user_lock and introduce and use a new
>> spinlock inside of the user_struct structure.
>
> While I don't immediately see anything wrong with it, I doubt its
> useful. What workload run with enough users that this makes a difference
> one way or another?
When running with containers and/or LXC, I believe that
each UID in each container gets its own user_struct, but
you do raise a good question - what user programs call
mlock anyway, and how often?
--
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