> 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... - 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 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- References:
- [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- From: Roman Zippel <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- Prev by Date: Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- Next by Date: Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- Previous by thread: Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- Next by thread: Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- Index(es):
 |