Re: [PATCH v11 0/4] Introducing a queue read/write lockimplementation

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 10:03:57AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Waiman Long <waiman.long@xxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > How about making the selection of MCS or ticket queuing either user 
> > configurable or depending on the setting of NR_CPUS, NUMA, etc?
> 
> No!
> 
> There are lots of disadvantages to adding such CONFIG_NUMA Kconfig 
> variants for locking primitives:
> 
>  - an doubling of the test matrix
> 
>  - an doubling of the review matrix and a halving of effective review 
>    capacity: we've just about go the capacity to review and validate 
>    patches like this. Splitting out a 'only NUMA cares' variant is a 
>    non-starter really.
> 
>  - but most importantly, there's absolutely no reason to not be fast
>    on 128 CPU systems in the low contended case either! Sacrificing
>    the low contended case with 'on 128 CPU systems it is the contended
>    path that matters' is an idiotic argument.

Not to mention distros will only ever pick one.

Also, there's probably several orders of magnitude more single and dual
socket systems out there than there are quad or bigger systems.

So even if the lightly contended case is say only 1% slower, that could
still add up to more cycles lost than won over all computers out there
running Linux.


--
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/