Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754984AbXJAWh2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Oct 2007 18:37:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751134AbXJAWhU (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Oct 2007 18:37:20 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:46588 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750882AbXJAWhT (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Oct 2007 18:37:19 -0400 Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 15:35:29 -0700 From: Arjan van de Ven To: davids@webmaster.com Cc: "Ingo Molnar" , Subject: Re: Network slowdown due to CFS Message-ID: <20071001153529.7c669c7a@laptopd505.fenrus.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20071001125350.055ef9bb@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Organization: Intel X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.0.1 (GTK+ 2.12.0; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1630 Lines: 35 On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 15:17:52 -0700 "David Schwartz" wrote: > > Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > It can occasionally be an optimization. You may have a case where > > > you can do something very efficiently if a lock is not held, but > > > you cannot afford to wait for the lock to be released. So you > > > check the lock, if it's held, you yield and then check again. If > > > that fails, you do it the less optimal way (for example, > > > dispatching it to a thread that *can* afford to wait). > > > at this point it's "use a futex" instead; once you're doing system > > calls you might as well use the right one for what you're trying to > > achieve. > > There are two answers to this. One is that you sometimes are writing > POSIX code and Linux-specific optimizations don't change the fact > that you still need a portable implementation. > > The other answer is that futexes don't change anything in this case. > In fact, in the last time I hit this, the lock was a futex on Linux. > Nevertheless, that doesn't change the basic issue. The lock is > locked, you cannot afford to wait for it, but not getting the lock is > expensive. The solution is to yield and check the lock again. If it's > still held, you dispatch to another thread, but many times, yielding > can avoid that. yielding IS blocking. Just with indeterminate fuzzyness added to it.... - 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/