[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANN689GtHw6dDeMd+2fuUz_dv_Z44XndVj2u-TNy70qkZWkpDw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 15:47:13 -0700
From: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, "Shi, Alex" <alex.shi@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Wilcox, Matthew R" <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: Performance regression from switching lock to rw-sem for anon-vma tree
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com> wrote:
> A few ideas that come to mind are avoiding taking the ->wait_lock and
> avoid dealing with waiters when doing the optimistic spinning (just like
> mutexes do).
>
> I agree that we should first deal with the optimistic spinning before
> adding the MCS complexity.
Maybe it would be worth disabling the MCS patch in mutex and comparing
that to the rwsem patches ? Just to make sure the rwsem performance
delta isn't related to 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