From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
To: dipankar@in.ibm.com
Cc: wli@holomorphy.com, akpm@digeo.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: 2.5.69-mm1
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 07:20:51 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030506.072051.45141886.davem@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030506152555.GC9875@in.ibm.com>
From: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 20:55:55 +0530
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 05:02:22AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> rwlocks believe it or not tend not to be superior over spinlocks,
> they actually promote cache line thrashing in the case they
> are actually being effective (>1 parallel reader)
Provided there isn't a very heavy contention among readers for the
spin_lock.
Even if there are thousands of readers trying to get the lock
at the same time, unless your hold time is significant these
readers will merely thrash the cache getting the rwlock_t.
And then thrash it again to release the rwlock_t.
This is especially true if the spinlock lives in the same cache
lines as the data it protects.
All of this is magnified on NUMA.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-05-06 15:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-05-05 6:16 2.5.69-mm1 Andrew Morton
2003-05-05 15:32 ` 2.5.69-mm1 Andrei Ivanov
2003-05-05 16:45 ` 2.5.69-mm1 Greg KH
2003-05-06 9:49 ` 2.5.69-mm1 Andrei Ivanov
2003-05-05 18:44 ` 2.5.69-mm1 Andrew Morton
2003-05-05 21:01 ` 2.5.69-mm1 William Lee Irwin III
2003-05-06 11:09 ` 2.5.69-mm1 Dipankar Sarma
2003-05-06 12:02 ` 2.5.69-mm1 David S. Miller
2003-05-06 15:25 ` 2.5.69-mm1 Dipankar Sarma
2003-05-06 14:20 ` David S. Miller [this message]
2003-05-06 15:47 ` 2.5.69-mm1 Dipankar Sarma
2003-05-05 21:02 ` 2.5.69-mm1 William Lee Irwin III
2003-05-06 14:33 ` 2.5.69-mm1 Steven Cole
2003-05-06 15:33 ` 2.5.69-mm1 Andrew Morton
2003-05-06 15:36 ` 2.5.69-mm1 Eric W. Biederman
2003-05-06 16:35 ` 2.5.69-mm1 Steven Cole
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030506.072051.45141886.davem@redhat.com \
--to=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=wli@holomorphy.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).