From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@hp.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@google.com>,
Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, tglx <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] cpuset,mm: use rwlock to protect task->mempolicy and mems_allowed
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 03:34:18 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100304163417.GS8653@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1267714704.25158.199.camel@laptop>
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 03:58:24PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 14:30 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for working on this. However, rwlocks are pretty nasty to use
> > when you have short critical sections and hot read-side (they're twice
> > as heavy as even spinlocks in that case).
>
> Should we add a checkpatch.pl warning for them?
Yes I think it could be useful.
Most people agree rwlock is *almost* always the wrong thing to do. Or at
least, they can easily be used wrongly because they seem like a great
idea for read-mostly data.
>
> There really rarely is a good case for using rwlock_t, for as you say
> they're a pain and often more expensive than a spinlock_t, and if
> possible RCU has the best performance.
Yep. Not to mention they starve writers (and don't FIFO like spinlocks).
Between normal spinlocks, RCU, percpu, and seqlocks, there's not much
room for rwlocks. Even tasklist lock should be RCUable if the effort is
put into it.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-04 16:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-03 10:52 [PATCH 4/4] cpuset,mm: use rwlock to protect task->mempolicy and mems_allowed Miao Xie
2010-03-03 23:50 ` Andrew Morton
2010-03-04 9:03 ` Miao Xie
2010-03-04 3:30 ` Nick Piggin
2010-03-04 9:36 ` Miao Xie
2010-03-04 14:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-04 16:34 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2010-03-04 4:53 ` Nick Piggin
2010-03-04 14:31 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2010-03-05 13:05 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2010-03-05 12:03 ` Paul Menage
2010-03-07 2:33 ` Miao Xie
2010-03-09 19:42 ` Paul Menage
2010-03-11 5:04 ` Miao Xie
2010-03-11 5:30 ` Nick Piggin
2010-03-11 7:57 ` Miao Xie
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=20100304163417.GS8653@laptop \
--to=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=lee.schermerhorn@hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=menage@google.com \
--cc=miaox@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).