[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150702094155.GW19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 11:41:55 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
der.herr@...r.at, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/13] percpu rwsem -v2
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 02:54:59PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org> wrote:
> >
> > And an attempt at visualization:
> >
> > http://monom.org/posix01/sweep-4.1.0-02756-ge3d06bd.png
> > http://monom.org/posix01/sweep-4.1.0-02769-g6ce2591.png
>
> Ugh. The old numbers look (mostly) fairly tight, and then the new ones
> are all over the map, and usually much worse.
>
> We've seen this behavior before when switching from a non-sleeping
> lock to a sleeping one. The sleeping locks have absolutely horrible
> behavior when they get contended, and spend tons of CPU time on the
> sleep/wakeup management,
Right, I'm just not seeing how any of that would happen here :/ The read
side would only ever block on reading /proc/$something and I'm fairly
sure that benchmark doesn't actually touch that file.
In any case, I will look into this, I've just not had time yet..
--
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