From: Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@suse.cz>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
tee@sgi.com, mingo@elte.hu, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch V3 0/3] Enable irqs when waiting for rwlocks
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:36:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1228307798.1009.1.camel@nathan.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1228307117.9673.232.camel@twins>
Peter Zijlstra píše v St 03. 12. 2008 v 13:25 +0100:
> On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 05:37 -0600, Robin Holt wrote:
> > > It's a bit regrettable to have different architectures behaving in
> > > different ways. It would be interesting to toss an x86_64
> > > implementation into the grinder, see if it causes any problems, see if
> > > it produces any tangible benefits. Then other architectures might
> > > follow. Or not, depending on the results ;)
> >
> > I personally expect SGI to work on this for x86_64 in the future.
> > Once we actually start testing systems with 128 and above cpus, I
> > would expect to see these performance issues needing to be addressed.
> > Until then, it is just a theoretical.
>
> Personally I consider this a ugly hack and would love to see people
> solve the actual problem and move away from rwlock_t, its utter rubbish.
Me too, but we don't have that clean and nice solution today, but what
we _do_ have today are the machines which break badly when interrupts
are disabled for the whole duration of taking a rwlock_t. :(
Feel free to rewrite all users of rwlock_t. I'll appreciate it, oh so
very much.
Petr
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@suse.cz>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
tee@sgi.com, mingo@elte.hu, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch V3 0/3] Enable irqs when waiting for rwlocks
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:36:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1228307798.1009.1.camel@nathan.suse.cz> (raw)
Message-ID: <20081203123638.8ZYIogFy8hRAE27kqJ3JRgqxHh56t-jQ1-NjqKuC4_g@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1228307117.9673.232.camel@twins>
Peter Zijlstra píše v St 03. 12. 2008 v 13:25 +0100:
> On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 05:37 -0600, Robin Holt wrote:
> > > It's a bit regrettable to have different architectures behaving in
> > > different ways. It would be interesting to toss an x86_64
> > > implementation into the grinder, see if it causes any problems, see if
> > > it produces any tangible benefits. Then other architectures might
> > > follow. Or not, depending on the results ;)
> >
> > I personally expect SGI to work on this for x86_64 in the future.
> > Once we actually start testing systems with 128 and above cpus, I
> > would expect to see these performance issues needing to be addressed.
> > Until then, it is just a theoretical.
>
> Personally I consider this a ugly hack and would love to see people
> solve the actual problem and move away from rwlock_t, its utter rubbish.
Me too, but we don't have that clean and nice solution today, but what
we _do_ have today are the machines which break badly when interrupts
are disabled for the whole duration of taking a rwlock_t. :(
Feel free to rewrite all users of rwlock_t. I'll appreciate it, oh so
very much.
Petr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-12-03 12:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20081104122405.046233722@attica.americas.sgi.com>
2008-12-03 0:13 ` [Patch V3 0/3] Enable irqs when waiting for rwlocks Andrew Morton
2008-12-03 0:13 ` Andrew Morton
2008-12-03 11:37 ` Robin Holt
2008-12-03 12:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-12-03 12:36 ` Petr Tesarik [this message]
2008-12-03 12:36 ` Petr Tesarik
2008-12-03 12:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-12-03 12:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=1228307798.1009.1.camel@nathan.suse.cz \
--to=ptesarik@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=holt@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tee@sgi.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox