Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758223AbZCSBUd (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:20:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754669AbZCSBUV (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:20:21 -0400 Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.92.25]:32081 "EHLO qw-out-2122.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753840AbZCSBUT (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:20:19 -0400 Subject: Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock From: Sven-Thorsten Dietrich To: David Miller Cc: ghaskins@novell.com, vernux@us.ibm.com, andi@firstfloor.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, pmullaney@novell.com In-Reply-To: <20090318.180355.228447835.davem@davemloft.net> References: <49C16349.9030503@us.ibm.com> <20090318.143844.173112261.davem@davemloft.net> <49C16D7C.3080003@novell.com> <20090318.180355.228447835.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:13:11 -0700 Message-Id: <1237425191.8204.41.camel@quadrophenia.thebigcorporation.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1646 Lines: 44 On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 18:03 -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Gregory Haskins > Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:54:04 -0400 > > > Note that -rt doesnt typically context-switch under contention anymore > > since we introduced adaptive-locks. Also note that the contention > > against the lock is still contention, regardless of whether you have -rt > > or not. Its just that the slow-path to handle the contended case for > > -rt is more expensive than mainline. However, once you have the > > contention as stated, you have already lost. > > First, contention is not implicitly a bad thing. > Its a bad thing when it does not scale. > Second, if the -rt kernel is doing adaptive spinning I see no > reason why that adaptive spinning is not kicking in here to > make this problem just go away. > If only the first of N contending threads gets to spin, 2..N would context-switch. > This lock is held for mere cycles, just to unlink an SKB from > the networking qdisc, and then it is immediately released. For very short hold times, and heavy contention, as well as for scalability, the solution may lie in tunable spinner-count and adaptive spinner time-out. Sven > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- 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/