[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <514BD299.2030908@surriel.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:40:09 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
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>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ipc,sem: sysv semaphore scalability
On 03/21/2013 09:23 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com> wrote:
>>
>> ipc lock contention:
>> 100 users: 8,74% (vanilla) 3.17% (v3 patchset)
>> 400 users: 21,86% (vanilla) 5.23% (v3 patchset)
>> 800 users 84,35% (vanilla) 7.39% (v3 patchset)
>
> Ok, I'd call that pretty much "solved". Sure, it's still visible, but
> for being a benchmark that apparently does little else than pound on
> those sysv semaphores, I think we can consider it pretty much fine.
> I'm going to assume that anybody who actually then does any real work
> (ie a database) is never going to see even close to this bad
> contention.
>
> Good job, Rik. I'm assuming we'll be merging this during the 3.10
> merge window, and hopefully the merge conflicts will be sorted out
> too. Rik, Peter, can you look at each others patches and see if you
> can get that sorted out for Andrew?
Will do.
I will rebase this series on top of what is in linux-next.
--
All rights reversed.
--
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