[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130723095124.GW27075@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:51:24 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
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>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
"Wilcox, Matthew R" <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.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 Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:45:13AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Why not just try the delayed addition approach first? The spinning is time
> limited AFAICS, so we don't _have to_ recognize those as writers per se,
> only if the spinning fails and it wants to go on the waitlist. Am I
> missing something?
>
> It will change patterns, it might even change the fairness balance - but
> is a legit change otherwise, especially if it helps performance.
Be very careful here. Some people (XFS) have very specific needs. Walken
and dchinner had a longish discussion on this a while back.
--
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