Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] locking: qspinlock

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 01:31:53PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> With the queuing spinlock, I expected to see somewhat better
> results, but I didn't at first. Turns out if you have any sort of
> lock debugging turned on, then the code doesn't ever go into the
> lock slow path and hence does not ever enter the "lock failed" slow
> path where all the contention fixes are supposed to be.

Yeah; its a 'feature' of the spinlock debugging to turn all spinlocks
into test-and-set thingies.

> Anyway, with all lock debugging turned off, the system hangs
> the instant I start the multithreaded bulkstat workload. Even the
> console is unrepsonsive. 

Oops, I only briefly tested this series in userspace and that seemed to
work. I'll go prod at it. Thanks for having a look though.

Is that bstat test any easier/faster to setup/run than the aim7 crap?
--
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/