Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4

[Mike Galbraith]

At 03:11 AM 12/26/2005 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > hm.  16 CPUs hitting the same semaphore at great arrival rates.  The cost
> > > of a short spin is much less than the cost of a sleep/wakeup.  The 
> machine
> > > was doing 100,000 - 200,000 context switches per second.
> >
> > interesting.. this might be a good indication that a "spin a bit first"
> > mutex slowpath for some locks might be worth implementing...
>
> If we see a workload which is triggering such high context switch rates,
> maybe.  But I don't think we've seen any such for a long time.

Hmm.  Is there a real workload where such a high context switch rate is 
necessary?  Every time I've seen a high (100,000 - 200,000 is beyond absurd 
on my little box, but...) context switch rate, it's been because something 
sucked.

        -Mike   

-
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/