From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>
Cc: Roman Penyaev <rpenyaev@suse.de>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] epoll: use rwlock in order to reduce ep_poll_callback() contention
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 20:04:30 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181206040430.d7wjik6lt7kr75m6@linux-r8p5> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <45bce871-edfd-c402-acde-2e57e80cc522@akamai.com>
On 12/3/18 6:02 AM, Roman Penyaev wrote:
> The main change is in replacement of the spinlock with a rwlock, which is
> taken on read in ep_poll_callback(), and then by adding poll items to the
> tail of the list using xchg atomic instruction. Write lock is taken
> everywhere else in order to stop list modifications and guarantee that list
> updates are fully completed (I assume that write side of a rwlock does not
> starve, it seems qrwlock implementation has these guarantees).
Its good then that Will recently ported qrwlocks to arm64, which iirc had
a bad case of writer starvation. In general, qrwlock will maintain reader
to writer ratios of acquisitions fairly well, but will favor readers over
writers in scenarios where when too many tasks (more than ncpus).
Thanks,
Davidlohr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-06 4:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-03 11:02 Roman Penyaev
2018-12-03 17:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-12-04 11:50 ` Roman Penyaev
2018-12-04 23:59 ` Andrea Parri
2018-12-05 11:25 ` Roman Penyaev
2018-12-04 17:23 ` Jason Baron
2018-12-04 19:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-12-05 11:22 ` Roman Penyaev
2018-12-05 11:16 ` Roman Penyaev
2018-12-05 16:38 ` Jason Baron
2018-12-05 20:11 ` Roman Penyaev
2018-12-06 1:54 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2018-12-06 3:08 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2018-12-06 10:27 ` Roman Penyaev
2018-12-06 4:04 ` Davidlohr Bueso [this message]
2018-12-06 10:25 ` Roman Penyaev
2018-12-05 23:46 ` Eric Wong
2018-12-06 10:52 ` Roman Penyaev
2018-12-06 20:35 ` Eric Wong
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=20181206040430.d7wjik6lt7kr75m6@linux-r8p5 \
--to=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jbaron@akamai.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=rpenyaev@suse.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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®