[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160609102552.GA16968@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:25:52 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: performance delta after VFS i_mutex=>i_rwsem conversion
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com> wrote:
>
> > I do have a patchset that allow us to more accurately determine the state of
> > the lock owner.
> >
> > locking/rwsem: Add reader-owned state to the owner field
> > http://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg2258572.html
> >
> > That should eliminate the performance gap between mutex and rwsem wrt
> > spinning when only writers are present. I am hoping that that patchset can
> > be queued for 4.8.
>
> Yeah, so I actually had this series merged for testing last week, but a
> complication with a prereq patch made me unmerge it. But I have no fundamental
> objections, at all.
>
> I also agree with Linus's general observation that we want to make
> down_write()/up_write() match mutex performance characteristics.
>
> I think kernel developers should fundamentally be able to switch between
> mutex_lock()/unlock() and down_write()/up_write() and back, without noticing
> any high level behavioral changes.
Ok, these enhancements are now in the locking tree and are queued up for v4.8:
git pull git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git locking/core
Dave, you might want to check your numbers with these changes: is rwsem
performance still significantly worse than mutex performance?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists