mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lkp@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: aim7 performance regression by commit 5a50508 report from LKP
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:44:00 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130129084400.GA5350@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130129082537.GS12678@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>


* Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> [...]

Very nice measurements and analysis, thanks!

> As stated above, anybody can have a chance to own the lock in 
> mutex once somebody release the lock. Well, there is only one 
> to own the lock in rwsem write lock, and the one is known 
> already: the one in the head of wait list. That would result 
> to more contention in rwsem write lock case, especially if the 
> one _will_ own the lock is not running now.

I think we should allow lock-steal between rwsem writers - that 
will not hurt fairness as most rwsem fairness concerns relate to 
reader vs. writer fairness.

Am I correct to assume that all relevant users in this workload 
are down_write() users?

You can see the type of lock use in:

   perf record -g
   perf report

I bet that allowing rwsem writer lock-steal would improve other 
workloads as well.

Thanks,

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2013-01-29  8:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-01-29  8:25 Yuanhan Liu
2013-01-29  8:44 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2013-01-29  9:06   ` Yuanhan Liu
2013-01-29  9:12     ` Ingo Molnar
2013-01-30  9:34       ` Yuanhan Liu
2013-01-31 11:22         ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-01 10:53           ` Yuanhan Liu

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=20130129084400.GA5350@gmail.com \
    --to=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lkp@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
    --cc=yuanhan.liu@linux.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

Powered by JetHome