Re: [patch] increase spinlock-debug looping timeouts (write_lock and NMI)

On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 17:37 +1000,
> 
> Otherwise, a straight rwlock->spinlock conversion will have a few more
> scalability issues, but I'd guess it wouldn't be a problem  at all for
> most workloads on most systems.

I'm curious what scalability advantage you see for rw spinlocks vs real
spinlocks ... since for any kind of moderate hold time the opposite is
expected ;)


-
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/

---

• References:
  • Re: [patch] increase spinlock-debug looping timeouts (write_lock and NMI)
    • From: Dave Olson <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] increase spinlock-debug looping timeouts (write_lock and NMI)
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] increase spinlock-debug looping timeouts (write_lock and NMI)
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Linux 2.6.17: PM-Timer bug warning?
• Next by Date: [patch] fix spinlock-debug looping
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch] increase spinlock-debug looping timeouts (write_lock and NMI)
• Next by thread: Re: [patch] increase spinlock-debug looping timeouts (write_lock and NMI)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]