[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150803160533.21be23b6@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 16:05:33 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, dhowells@...hat.com,
edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com, dave@...olabs.net,
waiman.long@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 19/19] rcu: Add fastpath bypassing funnel
locking
On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 17:40:01 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 08:34:52AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > If the extra read before the cmpxchg() does not hurt, we should do the
> > > same for mutex and make the above redundant.
> >
> > I am pretty sure that different hardware wants it done differently. :-/
> > So I agree that hard data would be good.
> >
> > I could probably further optimize the RCU code by checking for a
> > single-node tree, but I am not convinced that this is worthwhile.
> > However, skipping three cache misses in the uncontended case is
> > definitely worthwhile, hence this patch. ;-)
>
> I was mostly talking about the !mutex_is_locked() && mutex_try_lock()
> thing. The fast path thing makes sense.
Note, mutex does do this for the optimistic spin. See
mutex_try_to_aquire().
-- Steve
--
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