Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754800AbZCSMvQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:51:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753569AbZCSMuz (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:50:55 -0400 Received: from charybdis-ext.suse.de ([195.135.221.2]:50079 "EHLO emea5-mh.id5.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753308AbZCSMuy (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:50:54 -0400 Subject: Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock From: "Peter W. Morreale" 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 Organization: Linux Solutions Group Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:50:44 -0600 Message-Id: <1237467044.6926.27.camel@hermosa> 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: 1605 Lines: 39 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. > > 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. The basic 'problem' with comparing RT adaptive spinning to non-rt spinlocks is that if the lock owner is !oncpu, all spinners must break and go to sleep, otherwise we (potentially) deadlock. This does not exist for non-rt spinners. Best, -PWM > > This lock is held for mere cycles, just to unlink an SKB from > the networking qdisc, and then it is immediately released. > -- > 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/