From: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] smp_call_function: use rwlocks on queues rather than rcu
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:44:03 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <48B2D343.4020100@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080825151220.GA6745@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> But I am not sure that this gets the grace periods to go fast enough to
> cover Christoph's use case -- he seems to be in a "faster is better"
> space rather than in an "at least this fast" space. Still, it would
> likely help in some important cases.
I think there was an AIM9 regression in the close/open tests when the struct
file was switched to RCU. That test could be run with various intervals to
figure out if a shorter RCU period is beneficial and how short an RCU period
is needed to avoid the regression.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-25 15:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-08-22 0:29 [PATCH 2/2] smp_call_function: use rwlocks on queues rather than rcu Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-22 1:53 ` Nick Piggin
2008-08-22 6:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-22 7:06 ` Pekka Enberg
2008-08-22 7:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-22 9:12 ` Nick Piggin
2008-08-22 14:01 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-08-22 15:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-22 17:14 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-08-22 18:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-22 18:33 ` Andi Kleen
2008-08-22 18:35 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-23 7:34 ` Andi Kleen
2008-08-24 4:55 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-24 9:01 ` Andi Kleen
2008-08-22 22:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-22 18:36 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-08-22 19:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-22 20:03 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-08-22 20:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-25 10:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-25 15:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-25 15:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-25 15:46 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-08-25 15:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-26 13:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-26 14:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-27 15:16 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-25 20:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-26 5:13 ` Nick Piggin
2008-08-26 13:40 ` [PATCH 2/2] smp_call_function: use rwlocks on queues rather?than rcu Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-25 15:44 ` Christoph Lameter [this message]
2008-08-25 20:05 ` [PATCH 2/2] smp_call_function: use rwlocks on queues rather than rcu Paul E. McKenney
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=48B2D343.4020100@linux-foundation.org \
--to=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.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