From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
To: "'Nick Piggin'" <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: "Con Kolivas" <kernel@kolivas.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "'Chris Mason'" <mason@suse.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: RE: [PATCH RFC] smt nice introduces significant lock contention
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 02:17:32 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <000001c68625$614f59a0$0c4ce984@amr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <447FFD35.9020909@yahoo.com.au>
Nick Piggin wrote on Friday, June 02, 2006 1:56 AM
> Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
>
> > Ha, you beat me by one minute. It did cross my mind to use try lock there as
> > well, take a look at my version, I think I have a better inner loop.
>
> Actually you *have* to use trylocks I think, because the current runqueue
> is already locked.
You are absolutely correct. I forgot about the lock ordering.
> And why do we lock all siblings in the other case, for that matter? (not
> that it makes much difference except on niagara today).
>
> Rolled up patch with everyone's changes attached.
What about the part in dependent_sleeper() being so bully and actively
resched other low priority sibling tasks? I think it would be better
to just let the tasks running on sibling CPU to finish its current time
slice and then let the backoff logic to kick in.
- Ken
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-06-02 9:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-06-01 22:55 Chris Mason
2006-06-01 23:57 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 1:59 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 2:28 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 3:55 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 4:18 ` Nick Piggin
2006-06-02 6:08 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 7:53 ` Nick Piggin
2006-06-02 8:17 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 8:28 ` Nick Piggin
2006-06-02 8:34 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 8:56 ` Nick Piggin
2006-06-02 9:17 ` Chen, Kenneth W [this message]
2006-06-02 9:25 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 9:31 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 9:34 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 9:53 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 10:12 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 20:53 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 22:15 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 22:19 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 22:31 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 22:58 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-03 0:02 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-03 0:08 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-03 0:27 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 9:36 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 10:30 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 13:16 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 21:54 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 22:04 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 22:14 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 10:19 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 20:59 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 8:38 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 8:24 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 8:31 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 8:50 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 2:35 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 3:04 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 3:23 ` Con Kolivas
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='000001c68625$614f59a0$0c4ce984@amr.corp.intel.com' \
--to=kenneth.w.chen@intel.com \
--cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mason@suse.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®