[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1237467044.6926.27.camel@hermosa>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:50:44 -0600
From: "Peter W. Morreale" <pmorreale@...ell.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: ghaskins@...ell.com, vernux@...ibm.com, andi@...stfloor.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, pmullaney@...ell.com
Subject: Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 18:03 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:54:04 -0400
>
> > Note that -rt doesnt typically context-switch under contention anymore
> > since we introduced adaptive-locks. Also note that the contention
> > against the lock is still contention, regardless of whether you have -rt
> > or not. Its just that the slow-path to handle the contended case for
> > -rt is more expensive than mainline. However, once you have the
> > contention as stated, you have already lost.
>
> First, contention is not implicitly a bad thing.
>
> Second, if the -rt kernel is doing adaptive spinning I see no
> reason why that adaptive spinning is not kicking in here to
> make this problem just go away.
The basic 'problem' with comparing RT adaptive spinning to non-rt
spinlocks is that if the lock owner is !oncpu, all spinners must break
and go to sleep, otherwise we (potentially) deadlock. This does not
exist for non-rt spinners.
Best,
-PWM
>
> This lock is held for mere cycles, just to unlink an SKB from
> the networking qdisc, and then it is immediately released.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists