Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 06:26:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 06:26:07 -0400 Received: from Cantor.suse.de ([194.112.123.193]:19461 "HELO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 06:25:52 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:25:49 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Andrew Morton Cc: Andi Kleen , Alexander Viro , "Jeff V. Merkey" , kumon@flab.fujitsu.co.jp, Rik van Riel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) Message-ID: <20001027122549.A22417@gruyere.muc.suse.de> In-Reply-To: <39F92187.A7621A09@timpanogas.org> , ; <20001027094613.A18382@gruyere.muc.suse.de> <39F957BC.4289FF10@uow.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <39F957BC.4289FF10@uow.edu.au>; from andrewm@uow.edu.au on Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 09:23:56PM +1100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 09:23:56PM +1100, Andrew Morton wrote: > Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > When you have two CPUs contending on common paths it is better to do: > > [ spinlock stuff ] > > Andi, if the lock_kernel() is removed then the first time the CPUs will butt heads is on a semaphore. This is much more expensive. > > I bet if acquire_fl_sem() and release_fl_sem() are turned into lock_kernel()/unlock_kernel() then the scalability will come back. To test your theory it would be enough to watch context switch rates in top -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/