From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-next@vger.kernel.org, 1vier1@web.de,
felixh@informatik.uni-bremen.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ipc/sem: sem_lock with hysteresis
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:29:02 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160621202902.GB3790@linux-80c1.suse> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1466280142-19741-2-git-send-email-manfred@colorfullife.com>
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>sysv sem has two lock modes: One with per-semaphore locks, one lock mode
>with a single big lock for the whole array.
>When switching from the per-semaphore locks to the big lock, all
>per-semaphore locks must be scanned for ongoing operations.
>
>The patch adds a hysteresis for switching from the big lock to the per
>semaphore locks. This reduces how often the per-semaphore locks must
>be scanned.
Isn't this very arbitrary depending on the workload? Ie the other way around:
when we have a lot more simple ops going on not so good. While I'm more worried
about combinations that could cause enough complex ops to always delay taking
the finer grained lock, this change also obviously makes simple ops more expensive
on newly created segments.
In general I don't trust magic numbers much. What sort of numbers have you seen
with this patch? Is this a real concern (particularly because a lot of the sem->lock
work was because real world workloads were doing a lot more simple ops afaicr)?
Thanks,
Davidlohr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-21 20:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-15 5:23 linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree Stephen Rothwell
2016-06-18 19:39 ` Manfred Spraul
2016-06-18 20:02 ` [PATCH 1/2] ipc/sem.c: Fix complex_count vs. simple op race Manfred Spraul
2016-06-18 20:02 ` [PATCH 2/2] ipc/sem: sem_lock with hysteresis Manfred Spraul
2016-06-21 20:29 ` Davidlohr Bueso [this message]
2016-06-25 17:37 ` Manfred Spraul
2016-06-28 17:54 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-06-20 23:04 ` [PATCH 1/2] ipc/sem.c: Fix complex_count vs. simple op race Andrew Morton
2016-06-23 18:55 ` Manfred Spraul
2016-06-21 0:30 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-06-23 19:22 ` Manfred Spraul
2016-06-28 5:27 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-06-30 19:28 ` Manfred Spraul
2016-07-01 16:52 ` Davidlohr Bueso
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=20160621202902.GB3790@linux-80c1.suse \
--to=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=1vier1@web.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=felixh@informatik.uni-bremen.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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).