All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
	linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com, Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hpe.com>,
	Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH-tip 2/6] locking/rwsem: Enable optional count-based spinning on reader
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:27:57 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160614182757.GA15903@linux-80c1.suse> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1465927959-39719-3-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com>

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, Waiman Long wrote:

>This patch provides a way for the kernel code to designate specific
>rwsems to be more aggressive in term of optimistic spinning that the
>writers will continue to spin for some additional count-based time to
>see if it can get the lock before sleeping. This aggressive spinning
>mode should only be used on rwsems where the readers are unlikely to
>go to sleep.

Yikes, exposing this sort of thing makes me _very_ uneasy, not to mention
the ad-hoc nature and its easiness to mess up. I'm not really for this, even
if it shows extraordinary performance boosts on benchmarks.

Thanks,
Davidlohr

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hpe.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hpe.com>,
	Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH-tip 2/6] locking/rwsem: Enable optional count-based spinning on reader
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:27:57 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160614182757.GA15903@linux-80c1.suse> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1465927959-39719-3-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com>

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, Waiman Long wrote:

>This patch provides a way for the kernel code to designate specific
>rwsems to be more aggressive in term of optimistic spinning that the
>writers will continue to spin for some additional count-based time to
>see if it can get the lock before sleeping. This aggressive spinning
>mode should only be used on rwsems where the readers are unlikely to
>go to sleep.

Yikes, exposing this sort of thing makes me _very_ uneasy, not to mention
the ad-hoc nature and its easiness to mess up. I'm not really for this, even
if it shows extraordinary performance boosts on benchmarks.

Thanks,
Davidlohr

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
	linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com, Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hpe.com>,
	Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH-tip 2/6] locking/rwsem: Enable optional count-based spinning on reader
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 18:27:57 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160614182757.GA15903@linux-80c1.suse> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1465927959-39719-3-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com>

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, Waiman Long wrote:

>This patch provides a way for the kernel code to designate specific
>rwsems to be more aggressive in term of optimistic spinning that the
>writers will continue to spin for some additional count-based time to
>see if it can get the lock before sleeping. This aggressive spinning
>mode should only be used on rwsems where the readers are unlikely to
>go to sleep.

Yikes, exposing this sort of thing makes me _very_ uneasy, not to mention
the ad-hoc nature and its easiness to mess up. I'm not really for this, even
if it shows extraordinary performance boosts on benchmarks.

Thanks,
Davidlohr

  reply	other threads:[~2016-06-14 18:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-14 18:12 [RFC PATCH-tip 0/6] locking/rwsem: Enable reader optimistic spinning Waiman Long
2016-06-14 18:12 ` Waiman Long
2016-06-14 18:12 ` Waiman Long
2016-06-14 18:12 ` [RFC PATCH-tip 1/6] locking/rwsem: Stop active read lock ASAP Waiman Long
2016-06-14 18:12   ` Waiman Long
2016-06-14 18:12   ` Waiman Long
2016-06-14 18:12 ` [RFC PATCH-tip 2/6] locking/rwsem: Enable optional count-based spinning on reader Waiman Long
2016-06-14 18:12   ` Waiman Long
2016-06-14 18:12   ` Waiman Long
2016-06-14 18:27   ` Davidlohr Bueso [this message]
2016-06-14 18:27     ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-06-14 18:27     ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-06-14 19:11     ` Waiman Long
2016-06-14 19:11       ` Waiman Long
2016-06-14 19:11       ` Waiman Long
2016-06-14 19:11       ` Waiman Long
2016-06-14 18:12 ` [RFC PATCH-tip 3/6] locking/rwsem: move down rwsem_down_read_failed function Waiman Long
2016-06-14 18:12   ` Waiman Long
2016-06-14 18:12   ` Waiman Long
2016-06-14 18:12 ` [RFC PATCH-tip 4/6] locking/rwsem: Change RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS for better disambiguation Waiman Long
2016-06-14 18:12   ` Waiman Long
2016-06-14 18:12   ` Waiman Long
2016-06-14 18:12 ` [RFC PATCH-tip 5/6] locking/rwsem: Enable spinning readers Waiman Long
2016-06-14 18:12   ` Waiman Long
2016-06-14 18:12   ` Waiman Long
2016-06-14 18:12 ` [RFC PATCH-tip 6/6] xfs: Enable reader optimistic spinning for DAX inodes Waiman Long
2016-06-14 18:12   ` Waiman Long
2016-06-14 18:12   ` Waiman Long
2016-06-14 18:24   ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-06-14 18:24     ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-06-14 18:24     ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-06-14 19:08     ` Waiman Long
2016-06-14 19:08       ` Waiman Long
2016-06-14 19:08       ` Waiman Long
2016-06-14 19:08       ` Waiman Long
2016-06-14 23:06   ` Dave Chinner
2016-06-14 23:06     ` Dave Chinner
2016-06-14 23:06     ` Dave Chinner
2016-06-15 18:55     ` Waiman Long
2016-06-15 18:55       ` Waiman Long
2016-06-15 18:55       ` Waiman Long
2016-06-15 18:55       ` Waiman Long

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=20160614182757.GA15903@linux-80c1.suse \
    --to=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=Waiman.Long@hpe.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=doug.hatch@hpe.com \
    --cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
    --cc=linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=scott.norton@hpe.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.