[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1436479469.27924.19.camel@stgolabs.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 15:04:29 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-tip v2 0/2] locking/qrwlock: Improve qrwlock performance
On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 12:32 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> With this patch series in place, we can start converting some spinlocks
> back to rwlocks where it makes sense and the lock size increase isn't
> a concern.
Nice, have any users to convert? I can think of a few I've encountered,
but there must be quite a few, specially those nasty global spinlocks
where nobody cares about the size.
o hugetlb reservation map lock: Updating hugepage ranges does a two step
read/update for the reservation map. The first step could now be done
concurrently if converted.
o The infamous swap_lock; although I doubt any of the serious offenders
(ie zswap callbacks) would benefit much for anything
beyond /proc/meminfo and related.
o async cookie sync wait_event, battery/ata bootup(?).
etc. etc. Obviously the fairness factor is also something to consider.
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