From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Cc: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk, kiran@in.ibm.com,
akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, greg@kroah.com,
dipankar@in.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [patchset] Lockfree fd lookup 0 of 5
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 14:01:19 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040802210119.GS2334@holomorphy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040802130729.2dae8fd5.davem@redhat.com>
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 17:56:07 +0100 viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote:
>> How about this for comparison? That's just a dumb "convert to rwlock"
>> patch; we can be smarter in e.g. close_on_exec handling, but that's a
>> separate story.
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 01:07:29PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> Compares to plain spinlocks, rwlock's don't buy you much,
> if anything, these days.
> Especially for short sequences of code.
I've found unusual results in this area. e.g. it does appear to matter
for mapping->tree_lock for database workloads that heavily share a
given file and access it in parallel. The radix tree walk, though
intuitively short, is long enough to make the rwlock a win in the
database-oriented uses and microbenchmarks starting around 4x.
-- wli
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-08-02 21:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-08-02 10:10 [patchset] Lockfree fd lookup 0 of 5 Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2004-08-02 10:13 ` [patchset] Lockfree fd lookup 1 " Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2004-08-02 13:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-08-02 16:12 ` viro
2004-08-03 0:44 ` Greg KH
2004-08-02 10:16 ` [patchset] Lockfree fd lookup 2 " Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2004-08-03 0:43 ` Greg KH
2004-08-03 6:28 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2004-08-03 6:44 ` Greg KH
2004-08-03 7:41 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2004-08-02 10:18 ` [patchset] Lockfree fd lookup 0 " Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2004-08-02 10:20 ` [patchset] Lockfree fd lookup 4 " Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2004-08-02 10:23 ` [patchset] Lockfree fd lookup 5 " Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2004-08-02 16:56 ` [patchset] Lockfree fd lookup 0 " viro
2004-08-02 20:07 ` David S. Miller
2004-08-02 21:01 ` William Lee Irwin III [this message]
2004-08-02 23:15 ` David S. Miller
2004-08-03 2:04 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-08-03 9:23 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2004-08-03 9:35 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2004-08-03 10:17 ` Dipankar Sarma
2004-08-03 10:06 ` viro
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-08-02 18:50 Manfred Spraul
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=20040802210119.GS2334@holomorphy.com \
--to=wli@holomorphy.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=kiran@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk \
/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