Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1627687

Re: [PATCH v2 -tip 0/6] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

>  - explain why the loss of lock stealing makes sense. IIRC walken added
>    that specifically to address mmap_sem performance issues.

That's right, and the same applies to the writer spinning stuff; which
can makes a huge difference - more so than plain stealing. But as I've
mentioned, range locks can improve parallelism, which is/should be much
more welcomed than optimizations to the primitive. So yeah, we loose 
in comparing a full range to rwsem (not to mention the xadd stuff).
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.

Thanks,
Davidlohr

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH v2 -tip 0/6] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-04-19 14:40 +0200
  Re: [PATCH v2 -tip 0/6] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2017-04-20 19:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2 -tip 0/6] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-04-20 20:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2 -tip 0/6] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2017-04-20 20:40 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v2 -tip 0/6] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-04-20 21:20 +0200

csiph-web