[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1363813022.31240.2.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:57:02 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, hhuang@...hat.com,
"Low, Jason" <jason.low2@...com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
"Vinod, Chegu" <chegu_vinod@...com>
Subject: Re: ipc,sem: sysv semaphore scalability
On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 13:49 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com> wrote:
> >
> > This series makes the sysv semaphore code more scalable,
> > by reducing the time the semaphore lock is held, and making
> > the locking more scalable for semaphore arrays with multiple
> > semaphores.
>
> The series looks sane to me, and I like how each individual step is
> pretty small and makes sense.
>
> It *would* be lovely to see this run with the actual Swingbench
> numbers. The microbenchmark always looked much nicer. Do the
> additional multi-semaphore scalability patches on top of Davidlohr's
> patches help with the swingbench issue, or are we still totally
> swamped by the ipc lock there?
Yes, I'm testing this patchset with my swingbench workloads. I should
have some numbers by today or tomorrow.
>
> Maybe there were already numbers for that, but the last swingbench
> numbers I can actually recall was from before the finer-grained
> locking..
Right, I couldn't get Oracle to run on the with the previous patches,
hopefully the bug(s) are now addressed.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
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