From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, jack@suse.cz,
kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
mhocko@suse.com, mgorman@techsingularity.net,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -tip 0/6] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:36:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170420183646.GF20746@linux-80c1.suse> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170420175350.44mvhizyulyzb6oc@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:13:26AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
>> I have thought of some heuristics for avoiding sleeping under certain
>> constraints, which could mitigate the spinning step we loose, but I fear it
>> will never be exactly as fast as rwsems -- just consider
>> we always take the tree->lock.
>
>But tree->lock is a spinlock, so while this gets us out of rwsem-xadd
>territory for the fast paths, the whole lock-stealing and optimistic
>spinning stuff is on a different scale.
Oh, absolutely. I was merely pointing out the differences at a hair
splitting level.
>Those are about avoiding actually going to sleep and having to be woken
>up (and waiting to become running) again, which is a long time.
Yes, which is why I was thinking of ways to mitigate this. Ie: for
blocked writers with low counts of 'blocking_ranges'.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-20 18:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-06 8:46 [PATCH v2 -tip 0/6] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock Davidlohr Bueso
2017-04-06 8:46 ` [PATCH 1/6] interval-tree: Build unconditionally Davidlohr Bueso
2017-04-06 8:46 ` [PATCH 2/6] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock Davidlohr Bueso
2017-04-06 9:01 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-04-06 16:50 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2017-04-13 8:07 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-04-13 8:38 ` Jan Kara
2017-04-13 8:58 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-04-06 10:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-18 13:57 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-04-20 16:01 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2017-04-21 7:00 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-04-06 8:46 ` [PATCH 3/6] locking/locktorture: Fix rwsem reader_delay Davidlohr Bueso
2017-04-06 8:46 ` [PATCH 4/6] locking/locktorture: Fix num reader/writer corner cases Davidlohr Bueso
2017-04-06 8:46 ` [PATCH 5/6] locking/locktorture: Support range rwlocks Davidlohr Bueso
2017-04-06 8:46 ` [PATCH 6/6] staging/lustre: Use generic range rwlock Davidlohr Bueso
2017-04-07 10:08 ` Dilger, Andreas
2017-04-19 12:37 ` [PATCH v2 -tip 0/6] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-20 17:13 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2017-04-20 17:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-20 18:36 ` Davidlohr Bueso [this message]
2017-04-20 19:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-05-15 9:19 ` Davidlohr Bueso
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=20170420183646.GF20746@linux-80c1.suse \
--to=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/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