Re: [PATCH] eventpoll : Suppress a short lived lock from struct file

On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 09:18 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Hi Davide
> 
> I found in my tests that there is no need to have a f_ep_lock spinlock
> attached to each struct file, using 8 bytes on 64bits platforms. The
> lock is hold for a very short time period and can be global, with almost
> no change in performance for applications using epoll, and a gain for
> all others.
> 

Have you tested the impact of this change on big SMP/NUMA machines?
I hate to see an Altrix crashing to its knees :-)

-- 
Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>

-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] eventpoll : Suppress a short lived lock from struct file
    • From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] eventpoll : Suppress a short lived lock from struct file
    • From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: hwd accel framebuffer: Newbi question (sleep in sync)
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] [30/48] Suspend2 2.1.9.8 for 2.6.12: 607-atomic-copy.patch
• Previous by thread: [PATCH] eventpoll : Suppress a short lived lock from struct file
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] eventpoll : Suppress a short lived lock from struct file
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]