[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89iKO1koPa5R_mvK0k2dkFaq+F0PgcbvpVt+JpzzR5xsu6g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 21:10:05 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Roman Penyaev <rpenyaev@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/rwlocks: do not starve writers
On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 9:04 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 07:45:14PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> > Were rwlocks always unfair, and we have been lucky ?
>
> Yes.
So I wonder why we replaced eventpoll spinlock with an rwlock.
Writing a repro is probably more difficult for eventpoll though.
We definitely had production issues after commit a218cc491420
Powered by blists - more mailing lists