[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFLxGvy_yu3L5HrsuF9A=4HpbB-5twjkaswUbb0PUhK9NjKtvA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 19:08:59 +0200
From: richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Nikolay Ulyanitsky <lystor@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: 20% performance drop on PostgreSQL 9.2 from kernel 3.5.3 to
3.6-rc5 on AMD chipsets - bisected
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
>> Just using futex is unfortunately not the answer either.
>
> Yes, postgress performs loads better with it's spinlocks, but due to
> that, it necessarily _hates_ preemption. How the is the scheduler
> supposed to know that any specific userland task _really_ shouldn't be
> preempted at any specific time, else bad things follow?
Why perform custom userspace spinlocks better than futex() based ones?
I thought we have futex() to get rid of the custom ones...
Makes futex() only sense when things like priority inheritance are needed?
--
Thanks,
//richard
--
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