All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
To: Christoph Lameter <christoph@lameter.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>,
	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: page fault fastpath: Increasing SMP scalability by introducing pte locks?
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 00:12:38 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040816001238.GA6978@muc.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0408151654240.4346@server.home>

On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 04:55:57PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> > Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> writes:
> >
> > > On Sun, 15 Aug 2004, David S. Miller wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Is the read lock in the VMA semaphore enough to let you do
> > >> the pgd/pmd walking without the page_table_lock?
> > >> I think it is, but just checking.
> > >
> > > That would be great.... May I change the page_table lock to
> > > be a read write spinlock instead?
> >
> > That's probably not a good idea. r/w locks are extremly slow on
> > some architectures. Including ia64.
> 
> I was thinking about a read write spinlock not an readwrite
> semaphore. Look at include/asm-ia64/spinlock.h.

I was also talking about rw spinlocks.

> The implementations are almost the same. Are you sure
> about this?

Yes. Try the cat /proc/net/tcp test. It will take >100k read locks
for the TCP listen hash table, and on bigger ppc64 and ia64 machines this
can take nearly a second of system time.

-Andi

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
To: Christoph Lameter <christoph@lameter.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>,
	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: page fault fastpath: Increasing SMP scalability by introducing pte locks?
Date: 16 Aug 2004 02:12:38 +0200
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 02:12:38 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040816001238.GA6978@muc.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0408151654240.4346@server.home>

On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 04:55:57PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> > Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> writes:
> >
> > > On Sun, 15 Aug 2004, David S. Miller wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Is the read lock in the VMA semaphore enough to let you do
> > >> the pgd/pmd walking without the page_table_lock?
> > >> I think it is, but just checking.
> > >
> > > That would be great.... May I change the page_table lock to
> > > be a read write spinlock instead?
> >
> > That's probably not a good idea. r/w locks are extremly slow on
> > some architectures. Including ia64.
> 
> I was thinking about a read write spinlock not an readwrite
> semaphore. Look at include/asm-ia64/spinlock.h.

I was also talking about rw spinlocks.

> The implementations are almost the same. Are you sure
> about this?

Yes. Try the cat /proc/net/tcp test. It will take >100k read locks
for the TCP listen hash table, and on bigger ppc64 and ia64 machines this
can take nearly a second of system time.

-Andi

  reply	other threads:[~2004-08-16  0:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <2ttIr-2e4-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found] ` <2tzE4-6sw-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found]   ` <2tCiw-8pK-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
2004-08-15 23:53     ` page fault fastpath: Increasing SMP scalability by introducing Andi Kleen
2004-08-15 23:53       ` page fault fastpath: Increasing SMP scalability by introducing pte locks? Andi Kleen
2004-08-15 23:55       ` page fault fastpath: Increasing SMP scalability by introducing Christoph Lameter
2004-08-15 23:55         ` page fault fastpath: Increasing SMP scalability by introducing pte locks? Christoph Lameter
2004-08-16  0:12         ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2004-08-16  0:12           ` Andi Kleen
2004-08-15 13:50 Christoph Lameter
2004-08-15 20:09 ` David S. Miller
2004-08-15 22:58   ` Christoph Lameter
2004-08-15 23:58     ` David S. Miller
2004-08-16  0:11       ` Christoph Lameter
2004-08-16  1:56         ` David S. Miller
2004-08-16  3:29           ` Christoph Lameter
2004-08-16  7:00             ` Ray Bryant
2004-08-16 15:18               ` Christoph Lameter
2004-08-16 16:18                 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-08-16 16:18                   ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-08-16 14:39             ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-08-16 14:39               ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-08-15 22:38 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2004-08-16 17:28   ` Christoph Lameter
2004-08-17  8:01     ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20040816001238.GA6978@muc.de \
    --to=ak@muc.de \
    --cc=christoph@lameter.com \
    --cc=clameter@sgi.com \
    --cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.