On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 10:15 -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Ladder locking would end up:
> >
> > lock A0
> > lock B1
> > unlock A0 -> a new operation can start
> > lock C2
> > unlock B1
> > lock D5
> > unlock C2
> > ** we do stuff to D5
> > unlock D5
> >
>
> Instead of taking one lock we would need to take 4?
Yep.
> Wont doing so cause significant locking overhead?
> We probably would want to run some benchmarks.
Right, I was hoping the extra locking overhead would be more than
compensated by the reduction in lock contention time. But testing is
indeed in order.
> Maybe disable the scheme for systems with a small number of
> processors?
CONFIG_RADIX_TREE_CONCURRENT does exactly this.
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
