[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130406235125.GA12779@dcvr.yhbt.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 23:51:25 +0000
From: Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] wfcqueue: implement __wfcq_enqueue_head() (v2)
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> Implement enqueue-to-head. It can run concurrently with enqueue, splice
> to queue, and iteration, but requires a mutex against dequeue and splice
> from queue operations.
>
> Useful for special-cases where a queue needs to have nodes enqueued into
> its head.
>
> This patch is only compile-tested.
>
> Changes since v1:
> * Don't require mutual exclusion between traversals and
> __wfcq_enqueue_head().
>
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Thanks! The first hunk (sync table comment) conflicted with
my __wfcq_enqueue patch, but other than that I could not benchmark any
regression with my 4-core machine with v4 of my
"epoll: avoid spinlock contention with wfcqueue" patch.
All I needed was "s/__wfcq_prepend/__wfcq_enqueue_head/g" to my original
patch to use the updated API.
I was worried about the cmpxchg at first, but it does not seem to hurt
performance on my 4-core system. In fact, it was slightly better
(but within margin of error)
time ./eponeshotmt -c 1000000 -w 4 -t 4 -f 10
real 0m 5.78s
user 0m 1.20s
sys 0m 21.90s
Tested-by: Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net>
Hopefully somebody can test my epoll patches with more cores/threads :)
--
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