[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190416141205.GK12232@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 16:12:05 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/16] locking/rwsem: Implement lock handoff to
prevent lock starvation
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 01:22:50PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> +/*
> + * The typical HZ value is either 250 or 1000. So set the minimum waiting
> + * time to 4ms in the wait queue before initiating the handoff protocol.
> + */
> +#define RWSEM_WAIT_TIMEOUT (HZ/250)
That seems equally unfortunate. For HZ=100 that results in 0ms, and for
HZ=300 that results in 3 1/3-rd ms.
(and this is not considering Alpha,ARM and MIPS, who all have various
other 'creative' HZ values)
In general aiming for sub 10ms timing using jiffies seems 'optimistic'.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists