On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 07:18:33PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 18:52 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> > But I personally find this new rw_mutex not scalable at all if you have some
> > writers around.
> >
> > percpu_counter_sum is just a L1 cache eater, and O(NR_CPUS)
>
> Yeah, that is true; there are two occurences, the one in
> rw_mutex_read_unlock() is not strictly needed for correctness.
>
> Write locks are indeed quite expensive. But given the ratio of
> reader:writer locks on mmap_sem (I'm not all that familiar with other
> rwsem users) this trade-off seems workable.
I guess the problem with that logic is assuming the mmap_sem read side
always needs to be scalable. Given the ratio of threaded:unthreaded
apps, maybe the trade-off swings away from favour?
-
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]