[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANN689F=hsL0tkvhWUry9WxF3YwYV40JKiZ9ZoOQwEuLXz_iVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 15:50:37 -0800
From: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aquini@...hat.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, lwoodman@...hat.com, knoel@...hat.com,
chegu_vinod@...com, raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 4/5] x86,smp: keep spinlock delay values per hashed
spinlock address
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 01/27/2013 08:04 AM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> + u32 delay = (ent->hash == hash) ? ent->delay :
>>> MIN_SPINLOCK_DELAY;
>>
>> I still don't like the reseting of delay to MIN_SPINLOCK_DELAY when
>> there is a hash collision.
>
> I've been spending some time looking at this, because I am
> not a fan either.
>
> However, it seems to work and I failed to come up with
> anything better. Therefore, I have left it as is in the
> -v5 patch series.
Does that mean you know of workloads that would regress if you didn't
reset the delay to MIN_SPINLOCK_DELAY when detecting a hash collision
?
I have not seen any public reports of that...
--
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.
--
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