On Mon, 3 Dec 2012, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:37:49PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > So if this is a migration-specific scalability issue, then it might be
> > possible to solve by making the mutex be a rwsem instead, and have
> > migration only take it for reading.
> >
> > Of course, I'm quite possibly wrong, and the code depends on full
> > mutual exclusion.
> >
> > Just a thought, in case it makes somebody go "Hmm.."
> >
>
> Offhand, I cannot think of a reason why a rwsem would not work. This
> thing originally became a mutex because the RT people (Peter in
> particular) cared about being able to preempt faster. It'd be nice if
> they confirmed that rwsem is not be a problem for them.
rwsems are preemptable as well. So I don't think this was Peter's main
concern. If it works with an rwsem, then go ahead.
rwsems degrade on RT because we cannot do multiple reader boosting, so
they allow only a single reader which can take it recursive. But
that's an RT specific issue and nothing you should worry about.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
