From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Waiman Long Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH-tip v2 2/6] locking/rwsem: Stop active read lock ASAP Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:25:35 -0400 Message-ID: <5763194F.80109@hpe.com> References: <1465944489-43440-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> <1465944489-43440-3-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> <20160615172242.GQ30921@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <5761A9DE.6040702@hpe.com> <20160616021436.GA7765@linux-80c1.suse> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160616021436.GA7765@linux-80c1.suse> Sender: linux-ia64-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Jason Low , Dave Chinner , Scott J Norton , Douglas Hatch On 06/15/2016 10:14 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Waiman Long wrote: > >> I think there will be a little bit of performance impact for a >> workload that produce just the right amount of rwsem contentions. > > I'm not saying the change doesn't make sense, but this is the sort of > thing that will show nice numbers in one workload and go bite you in > another. > > Thanks, > Davidlohr I would certainly agree if the additional atomic op is in the fastpath. Since it is in the slowpath, one additional atomic op will just be a small part of the whole rwsem_down_read_failed() function. I doubt if the performance degradation, if any, can be even noticeable. Cheers, Longman