Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [ckrm-tech] Re: [PATCH 00/01] Move Exit Connectors

[Jes Sorensen <jes@trained-monkey.org>]

>>>>> "Matt" == Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com> writes:

Matt> On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 05:01 -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> It all depends on the specific location of the locks and how often
>> they are taken. As long as something is taken by the same CPU all
>> the time is not going to be a major issue, but if we end up with
>> anything resembling a global lock, even if it is only held for a
>> very short time, it is going to bite badly. On a 4-way you probably
>> won't notice, but go to a 64-way and it bites, on a 512-way it eats
>> you alive (we had a problem in the timer code quite a while back
>> that prevented the machine from booting - it wasn't a lock that was
>> held for a long time, just the fact that every CPU would take it
>> every HZ was enough).

Matt> 	OK, so you've established that global locks in timer paths are
Matt> Bad.  However you haven't established that timer paths are
Matt> almost the same as the task paths we're talking about. I suspect
Matt> timer paths are used much more frequently than fork, exec, or
Matt> exit.

Hi Matt,

I wasn't trying to make it sound like this was an apples to apples
comparison, what I am saying is simply that locks aren't free.

You are totally right that fork/exec should be called a lot less
frequently, but the delay account data collection points will be in far
more places than that and they will all go for the lock.

Matt> 	I've appended a small patch that adds a global lock to the
Matt> task_notify paths for testing purposes. I'm curious to know what
Matt> kind of a performance difference you would see on your 64 or
Matt> 512-way if you were to run with it.

I don't have a 512-way to play with at the moment, but again I don't
think it makes sense to benchmark things which aren't matching what we
are looking at. If we can avoid the locks in the first place then
there's really no reason for not doing that.

Matt> 	Looking at the ideas for lockless implementations I'm curious
Matt> how well Keith's notifier chains patch would work in this
Matt> case. It does not acquire a global lock in the "call" path and,
Matt> as Keith suggested, probably can be modified to avoid cache
Matt> bouncing.

Yup, I was curious about that. I haven't had a chance to look at it
carefully yet.

Cheers,
Jes
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/