* Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> Here it is a little ambiguous. The process use to own the lock, but
> someone stole it. When grabbing a lock, I always grab the process
> lock first before grabbing the lock's lock, but this isn't necessary.
> So if you already have the two locks (mutex and process) as is the
> case above, you don't need to unlock them and regrab them (although
> this doesn't hurt, except for performance), because any race would
> have been with the grabbing of these two locks in the first place.
>
> Now, here's why it's safe. The process that use to own the mutex and
> had it stolen now is out of the chain. The pi_lock and the wait_lock
> here are not in any order. So no one who is grabbing the process'
> pi_lock should have owned the wait_lock and vice versa.
>
> So here's an updated patch without this lock switching:
your patch works great here, on 3 separate systems: a 1-way, a 2/4-way
and an 8-way.
the 1-way system performed so well running the SMP kernel that i first
thought i booted the UP kernel by accident :-)
on the 8-way box, "hackbench 10" got _3.7_ times faster (!!!).
i have booted the 8-way box without your patch once more because i didnt
believe the results initially and thought they were some benchmarking
fluke. But no, it wasnt a fluke. The kernel profiles are nicely flat
now.
i've released 2.6.13-rc7-rt2 with your patch included. This is certainly
a major milestone for PREEMPT_RT, it is now a first-class scalability
citizen on SMP too. Great work Steven!
Ingo
-
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |