At 03:11 AM 12/26/2005 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > hm. 16 CPUs hitting the same semaphore at great arrival rates. The cost
> > of a short spin is much less than the cost of a sleep/wakeup. The
machine
> > was doing 100,000 - 200,000 context switches per second.
>
> interesting.. this might be a good indication that a "spin a bit first"
> mutex slowpath for some locks might be worth implementing...
If we see a workload which is triggering such high context switch rates,
maybe. But I don't think we've seen any such for a long time.
Hmm. Is there a real workload where such a high context switch rate is
necessary? Every time I've seen a high (100,000 - 200,000 is beyond absurd
on my little box, but...) context switch rate, it's been because something
sucked.
-Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
