Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> ...
> I'm looking at your spinlock_irq now and thinking the _irq part could
> possibly be avoided. Can you please remind me of the motivation for this -
> was it originally intended to address the same race we've been working on
> here?
>
scalability, mainly. If the CPU holding the lock takes an interrupt,
all the other CPUs get to spin until the handler completes. I measured
a 30% reducton in contention from this.
Not a generally justifiable trick, but this is a heavily-used lock.
All the new games in refill_inactive() are there to minimise the
interrupt-off time.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 22:00:14 EST