[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1371508066.27102.639.camel@schen9-DESK>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:27:46 -0700
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...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, 2013-06-14 at 15:47 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> 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.
>
I've tried to back out the MCS patch. In fact, for exim, it is about 1%
faster without MCS. So the better performance of mutex I saw was not
due to MCS. Thanks for the suggestion.
Tim
--
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