On 12/21/2012 10:49 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 09:51:35PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
However, since spinlock contention should not be the
usual state, and all a scalable lock does is make sure
that N+1 CPUs does not perform worse than N CPUs, using
scalable locks is a stop-gap measure.
I believe a stop-gap measure should be kept as simple as
we can. I am willing to consider moving to a per-lock
delay factor if we can figure out an easy way to do it,
but I would like to avoid too much extra complexity...
Rik,
I like your solution. It's rather simple and simple solutions tend to
end up being the closest to optimal. The more complex a solution gets,
the more it starts chasing fireflies.
Anyway, I'd like to see this code tested, and more benchmarks run
against it.
Absolutely. I would love to see if this code actually
causes regressions anywhere.
It is simple enough that I suspect it will not, but there
really is only one way to find out.
The more people test this with different workloads on
different SMP systems, the better.
--
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/
