[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170413182939.jobaxup4k7n3qbhf@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 20:29:39 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: 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, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/13] rcu: Make RCU_FANOUT_LEAF help text
more explicit about skew_tick
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:31:00AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 07:04:34PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > And I have vague memories of it actually causing lock contention, but
> > I've forgotten how that worked.
>
> That is a new one on me. I can easily see how not skewing ticks could
> cause serious lock contention, but am missing how skewed ticks would
> do so.
It could've been something like cacheline bouncing. Where with a
synchronized tick, the (global) cacheline would get used by all CPUs on
a node before heading out to the next node etc.. Where with a skewed
tick, it would forever bounce around.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists