RE: [PATCH RFC] smt nice introduces significant lock contention

[Chen, Kenneth W]

Nick Piggin wrote on Friday, June 02, 2006 1:56 AM
> Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> 
> > Ha, you beat me by one minute. It did cross my mind to use try lock there as
> > well, take a look at my version, I think I have a better inner loop.
> 
> Actually you *have* to use trylocks I think, because the current runqueue
> is already locked.

You are absolutely correct.  I forgot about the lock ordering.


> And why do we lock all siblings in the other case, for that matter? (not
> that it makes much difference except on niagara today).
> 
> Rolled up patch with everyone's changes attached.

What about the part in dependent_sleeper() being so bully and actively
resched other low priority sibling tasks?  I think it would be better
to just let the tasks running on sibling CPU to finish its current time
slice and then let the backoff logic to kick in.

- Ken
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/