[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1429551065.2042.14.camel@stgolabs.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:31:05 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
fredrik.markstrom@...driver.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] futex: lockless wakeups
On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 16:57 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Haha, you dug that out did you ;-)
>
> Does this patch on its own actually help anything? Back when I wrote
> that there was the vague hope it would actually help some of the
> client-server ping-pong workloads, where the client does sync requests
> to the server.
>
> In that case, if the server can handle the req. while the client yields
> we've saved on an expensive wakeup.
>
> Reality never really worked out for that -- even after we fixed a few
> boot and runtime issues with it.
I had boot problems about 2 years ago (even with qemu) with it.
Nowadays, I cannot trigger any issues with it. And on a large machine
I've been using it just fine, throwing a lot of workloads at it. All in
all my schedule auditing has only been by searching the code, not from
this patch.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
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