From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
ptesarik@suse.cz, tee@sgi.com, holt@sgi.com,
peterz@infradead.org, mingo@elte.hu, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch V3 0/3] Enable irqs when waiting for rwlocks
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 16:13:11 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081202161311.ae3376cb.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081104122405.046233722@attica.americas.sgi.com>
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 06:24:05 -0600
holt@sgi.com wrote:
> New in V3:
> * Handle rearrangement of some arch's include/asm directories.
>
> New in V2:
> * get rid of ugly #ifdef's in kernel/spinlock.h
> * convert __raw_{read|write}_lock_flags to an inline func
>
> SGI has observed that on large systems, interrupts are not serviced for
> a long period of time when waiting for a rwlock. The following patch
> series re-enables irqs while waiting for the lock, resembling the code
> which is already there for spinlocks.
>
> I only made the ia64 version, because the patch adds some overhead to
> the fast path. I assume there is currently no demand to have this for
> other architectures, because the systems are not so large. Of course,
> the possibility to implement raw_{read|write}_lock_flags for any
> architecture is still there.
>
The patches seem reasonable. I queued all three with the intention of
merging #1 and #2 into 2.6.29. At that stage, architectures can decide
whether or not they want to do this. I shall then spam Tony with #3 so
you can duke it out with him.
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 ;)
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: holt@sgi.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
ptesarik@suse.cz, tee@sgi.com, peterz@infradead.org,
mingo@elte.hu, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch V3 0/3] Enable irqs when waiting for rwlocks
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 16:13:11 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081202161311.ae3376cb.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
Message-ID: <20081203001311.QKWpCiP2OINwiB3brWXMvsPWy-WBSRClj7_hVUI-j0k@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081104122405.046233722@attica.americas.sgi.com>
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 06:24:05 -0600
holt@sgi.com wrote:
> New in V3:
> * Handle rearrangement of some arch's include/asm directories.
>
> New in V2:
> * get rid of ugly #ifdef's in kernel/spinlock.h
> * convert __raw_{read|write}_lock_flags to an inline func
>
> SGI has observed that on large systems, interrupts are not serviced for
> a long period of time when waiting for a rwlock. The following patch
> series re-enables irqs while waiting for the lock, resembling the code
> which is already there for spinlocks.
>
> I only made the ia64 version, because the patch adds some overhead to
> the fast path. I assume there is currently no demand to have this for
> other architectures, because the systems are not so large. Of course,
> the possibility to implement raw_{read|write}_lock_flags for any
> architecture is still there.
>
The patches seem reasonable. I queued all three with the intention of
merging #1 and #2 into 2.6.29. At that stage, architectures can decide
whether or not they want to do this. I shall then spam Tony with #3 so
you can duke it out with him.
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 ;)
next parent reply other threads:[~2008-12-03 0:13 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 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2008-12-03 0:13 ` [Patch V3 0/3] Enable irqs when waiting for rwlocks Andrew Morton
2008-12-03 11:37 ` Robin Holt
2008-12-03 12:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-12-03 12:36 ` Petr Tesarik
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=20081202161311.ae3376cb.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=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=ptesarik@suse.cz \
--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