On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 04:48 -0800, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > From: Eric Dumazet
> >
> > Eric Dumazet found a regression with the spinlock backoff code,
> > in workloads where multiple spinlocks were contended, each having
> > a different
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet
>
> Eric Dumazet found a regression with the spinlock backoff code,
> in workloads where multiple spinlocks were contended, each having
> a different wait time.
I think you should really clarify that the regression was
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Rik van Riel r...@redhat.com wrote:
From: Eric Dumazet eric.duma...@gmail.com
Eric Dumazet found a regression with the spinlock backoff code,
in workloads where multiple spinlocks were contended, each having
a different wait time.
I think you should really
On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 04:48 -0800, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Rik van Riel r...@redhat.com wrote:
From: Eric Dumazet eric.duma...@gmail.com
Eric Dumazet found a regression with the spinlock backoff code,
in workloads where multiple spinlocks were contended,
From: Eric Dumazet
Eric Dumazet found a regression with the spinlock backoff code,
in workloads where multiple spinlocks were contended, each having
a different wait time.
This patch has multiple delay values per cpu, indexed on a hash
of the lock address, to avoid that problem.
Eric Dumazet
From: Eric Dumazet eric.duma...@gmail.com
Eric Dumazet found a regression with the spinlock backoff code,
in workloads where multiple spinlocks were contended, each having
a different wait time.
This patch has multiple delay values per cpu, indexed on a hash
of the lock address, to avoid that
6 matches
Mail list logo
