* Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was toying with a scalable rw_mutex and found that it gives ~10%
> reduction in system time on ebizzy runs (without the MADV_FREE patch).
>
> 2-way x86_64 pentium D box:
>
> 2.6.21
>
> /usr/bin/time ./ebizzy -m -P
> 59.49user 137.74system 1:49.22elapsed 180%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (0major+33555877minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>
> 2.6.21-rw_mutex
>
> /usr/bin/time ./ebizzy -m -P
> 57.85user 124.30system 1:42.99elapsed 176%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (0major+33555877minor)pagefaults 0swaps
nice! This 6% runtime reduction on a 2-way box will i suspect get
exponentially better on systems with more CPUs/cores.
i also like the design, alot: instead of doing a full new lock type
(with per-arch changes, extra lockdep support, etc. etc) you layered the
new abstraction ontop of mutexes. This makes this hard locking
abstraction look really, really simple, while the percpu_counter trick
makes it scale _perfectly_ for the reader case. Congratulations!
given how nice this looks already, have you considered completely
replacing rwsems with this? I suspect you could test the correctness of
that without doing a mass API changeover, by embedding struct rw_mutex
in struct rwsem and implementing kernel/rwsem.c's API that way. (the
real patch would just flip it all over to rw-mutexes)
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
