Re: [PATCH linux-2.6 04/04] brsem: convert cpucontrol to brsem

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Nathan Lynch wrote:

>Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>>
>>Note that I happen to also think the idea (brsems) have merit, and
>>that cpucontrol may be one of the places where a sane implementation
>>would actually be useful... but at least when you're introducing
>>this kind of complexity anywhere, you *really* need to be able to
>>back it up with numbers.
>>
>
>The only performance-related complaint with cpu hotplug of which I'm
>aware -- that taking a cpu down on a large system can be painfully
>slow -- resides in the "write side" of the code, which is not the case
>that the brsem implementation optimizes.  I think this patch would
>make that case even worse.  So I don't think it's appropriate to use a
>brsem for cpu hotplug, especially without trying rwsem first.
>
>

I'm not sure that a brsem would make a noticable difference.

It isn't that cpu hotplug semaphore is a performance problem
now, but that it isn't being used in as many cases as it could
be due to its unscalable nature. For example, a while back I
wanted to use it in the fork() path in the scheduler but
couldn't.

Anyway, as I said, you need to be able to back it up with
numbers ;)

Nick


Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com