[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311261333101.30673@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 13:34:37 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Scott Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Tom Vaden <tom.vaden@...com>,
Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 0/5] futex: Allow lockless empty check of hashbucket
plist in futex_wake()
On Tue, 26 Nov 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:21:40PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > I'm somewhat reluctant to chalk it up to a single mfence - maybe
> > timings/behavior changed in some substantial way?
>
> Ah indeed! We also changed the case where an enqueueing futex sees the
> uval change and bails. It is now far more expensive due to having to
> both queue and unqueue, whereas before it wouldn't queue at all.
>
> I suppose the idea was to offset that by not requiring locking on the
> wake side.
Aside of that I really would be interrested in an explanation for the
STDDEV going up by factor 5. That's a clear indicator for fishyness.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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