[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150127171021.GJ21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 18:10:21 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] locking/rwsem: Set lock ownership ASAP
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:36:06PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> In order to optimize the spinning step, we need to set the lock
> owner as soon as the lock is acquired; after a successful counter
> cmpxchg operation, that is. This is particularly useful as rwsems
> need to set the owner to nil for readers, so there is a greater
> chance of falling out of the spinning. Currently we only set the
> owner much later in the game, in the more generic level -- latency
> can be specially bad when waiting for a node->next pointer when
> releasing the osq in up_write calls.
>
> As such, update the owner inside rwsem_try_write_lock (when the
> lock is obtained after blocking) and rwsem_try_write_lock_unqueued
> (when the lock is obtained while spinning). This requires creating
> a new internal rwsem.h header to share the owner related calls.
>
> Also cleanup some headers for mutex and rwsem.
This is the thing I suggested
lkml.kernel.org/r/20150108103708.GE29390@...ns.programming.kicks-ass.net
there right?
Do you have numbers for how much this gained?
--
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