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
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
On 06/15/2016 01:22 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 06:48:05PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
Currently, when down_read() fails, the active read locking isn't undone
until the rwsem_down_read_failed() function grabs the wait_lock. If the
wait_lock is contended, it may takes a while
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 06:48:05PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> Currently, when down_read() fails, the active read locking isn't undone
> until the rwsem_down_read_failed() function grabs the wait_lock. If the
> wait_lock is contended, it may takes a while to get the lock. During
> that period, writ
Currently, when down_read() fails, the active read locking isn't undone
until the rwsem_down_read_failed() function grabs the wait_lock. If the
wait_lock is contended, it may takes a while to get the lock. During
that period, writer lock stealing will be disabled because of the
active read lock.
T
5 matches
Mail list logo
