Yes the wakeup happens deep inside the critical section and if the process
is running on another CPU it could race to the lock.
Hmm, i suppose the wakeup could be moved out, but it would need some
restructuring of the code. Also to be safe the code would still need
to at least hold a reference
> Perhaps a poor choice of words on my part - something along the lines of:
>
> hold_lock();
> wake_up_someone();
> release_lock();
>
> where the someone being awoken can try to grab the lock before the path
> doing the waking manages to release it.
Yes the wakeup happens deep inside the criti
Andi Kleen wrote:
The meta question behind all that would seem to be whether the scheduler
should be telling us where to perform the network processing, or should
the network processing be telling the scheduler what to do? (eg all my
old blathering about IPS vs TOPS in HP-UX...)
That's an un
>
> The meta question behind all that would seem to be whether the scheduler
> should be telling us where to perform the network processing, or should
> the network processing be telling the scheduler what to do? (eg all my
> old blathering about IPS vs TOPS in HP-UX...)
That's an unsolved pr
Andi Kleen wrote:
Rick Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Still, does this look like something worth persuing? In a past
life/OS when one was able to eliminate one percentage point of
spinlock contention, two percentage points of improvement ensued.
The stack is really designed to go fast wi
Rick Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Still, does this look like something worth persuing? In a past
> life/OS when one was able to eliminate one percentage point of
> spinlock contention, two percentage points of improvement ensued.
The stack is really designed to go fast with per CPU loca
SPINLOCKS HOLDWAIT
UTIL CONMEAN( MAX ) MEAN( MAX )(% CPU) TOTAL NOWAIT SPIN
RJECT NAME
7.4% 2.8% 0.1us( 143us) 3.3us( 147us)( 1.4%) 75262432 97.2% 2.8%
0% lock_sock_nested+0x30
29.5% 6.6% 0.5us( 148us) 0.9us( 143us)(0.49%) 37622512 93.4% 6.
On 2/1/07, Rick Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
With some help from Lee Schermerhorn and Alan Brunelle I got a lockmeter
kernel going, and it is suggesting that the greatest spinlock contention
comes from the routines:
SPINLOCKS HOLDWAIT
UTIL CONMEAN( MAX ) MEAN(
Rick Jones wrote:
A 2.6.10-rc5 kernel onto each system thanks to pointers from Dan Frazier.
gaak - 2.6.20-rc5 that is.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.
For various nefarious porpoises relating to comparing and contrasting a
single 10G NIC with N 1G ports and hopefully finding interesting
processor cache (mis)behaviour in the stack, I got my hands on a pair of
8 core systems with plenty of RAM and I/O slots. (rx6600 with 1.6 GHz
dual-core Itan
10 matches
Mail list logo
