On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 09:12 -0700, Suresh Siddha wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 04:32 -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 16:19 -0800, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 12:51 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > > Well, as you know :) tglx and I are on the road ... I'll try to get to it on Friday before I take off again.
> > > 
> > > Also I talked to Thomas about this rwlock conversion and he referred to
> > > RT issues with rwlock. And the best is to avoid this using RCU.
> > 
> > Its not just RT, even for mainline rwlock_t is a massive pain and often
> > is no better (actually worse) than a spinlock due to the massive
> > cacheline bouncing it introduces.
> 
> Don't we have the same cacheline bouncing issues with the ticket
> spinlocks?

Sure, but the rwlock_t is unfair and can degrade into much worse
performance than the spinlock.

Thing is, rwlock_t needs to write to the cacheline for each read
acquire, so unless the hold time is much-much longer than the cacheline
bounce time, its just not worth it, but since its a rwlock_t it should
be have short hold time, hence its a useless construct :-)


--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/