[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51BF9960.904@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 07:18:56 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.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>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
"Wilcox, Matthew R" <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: Performance regression from switching lock to rw-sem for anon-vma
tree
On 06/18/2013 02:45 AM, Tim Chen wrote:
>>> + if (unlikely(sem->count < RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)) {
>>> > > + cpu_relax();
>>> > > + continue;
>>> > > + }
> The above two if statements could be cleaned up as a single check:
>
> if (unlikely(sem->count < RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS))
> return sem;
>
> This one statement is sufficient to check that we don't have a writer
> stolen the lock before we attempt to acquire the read lock by modifying
> sem->count.
>
>
Thanks. I will send out the patchset base your suggestion.
--
Thanks
Alex
--
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