[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5763194F.80109@hpe.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:25:35 -0400
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<x86@...nel.org>, <linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@....com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH-tip v2 2/6] locking/rwsem: Stop active read lock ASAP
On 06/15/2016 10:14 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Waiman Long wrote:
>
>> I think there will be a little bit of performance impact for a
>> workload that produce just the right amount of rwsem contentions.
>
> I'm not saying the change doesn't make sense, but this is the sort of
> thing that will show nice numbers in one workload and go bite you in
> another.
>
> Thanks,
> Davidlohr
I would certainly agree if the additional atomic op is in the fastpath.
Since it is in the slowpath, one additional atomic op will just be a
small part of the whole rwsem_down_read_failed() function. I doubt if
the performance degradation, if any, can be even noticeable.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists