From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965045AbWFTIiI (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jun 2006 04:38:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965050AbWFTIiI (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jun 2006 04:38:08 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:62608 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965045AbWFTIiG (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jun 2006 04:38:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:33:05 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andrew Morton , Dave Olson , ccb@acm.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] increase spinlock-debug looping timeouts (write_lock and NMI) Message-ID: <20060620083305.GB7899@elte.hu> References: <20060619233947.94f7e644.akpm@osdl.org> <4497A5BC.4070005@yahoo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4497A5BC.4070005@yahoo.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.0 required=5.9 tests=AWL,BAYES_50 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 0.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5001] 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Nick Piggin wrote: > Otherwise, a straight rwlock->spinlock conversion will have a few more > scalability issues, but I'd guess it wouldn't be a problem at all for > most workloads on most systems. curious, do you have any (relatively-) simple to run testcase that clearly shows the "scalability issues" you mention above, when going from rwlocks to spinlocks? I'd like to give it a try on an 8-way box. Ingo