Thread (31 messages) 31 messages, 10 authors, 2009-03-20

Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock

From: Peter W. Morreale <hidden>
Date: 2009-03-19 12:51:16
Also in: linux-rt-users, lkml

Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)

On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 18:03 -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Gregory Haskins <redacted>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:54:04 -0400
quoted
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
  
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help