Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3 -v2] x86,smp: auto tune spinlock backoffdelay factor
From: Jan Beulich
Date: Thu Jan 03 2013 - 04:05:52 EST
>>> On 27.12.12 at 20:09, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/27/2012 01:41 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> 12/27/12 4:01 PM >>>
>>> On 12/27/2012 09:27 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>> So the hash sounds good to me, because the hash key could mix both lock
>>>> address and caller IP ( __builtin_return_address(1) in
>>> The lock acquisition time depends on the holder of the lock,
>>> and what the CPUs ahead of us in line will do with the lock,
>>> not on the caller IP of the spinner.
>> The lock holder could supply its __builtin_return_address(0) for use
>> in eventual hashing.
>> Also, with all of this - did you evaluate the alternative of using
>> monitor/mwait instead?
> How much bus traffic do monitor/mwait cause behind the scenes?
I would suppose that this just snoops the bus for writes, but the
amount of bus traffic involved in this isn't explicitly documented.
One downside of course is that unless a spin lock is made occupy
exactly a cache line, false wakeups are possible.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/