Re: [PATCH v6 3/5] qrwlock: Enable fair queue read/write lock

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:11:48AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > By default, queue rwlock is fair among writers and gives preference
> > to readers allowing them to steal lock even if a writer is
> > waiting. However, there is a desire to have a fair variant of
> > rwlock that is more deterministic. To enable this [..]
> 
> Is there really any point in having the option for unfair at all?

FWIW unfair can be faster in some cases. It depends on the workload.

The fair lock doesn't know anything about the topology of the system,
so it will happily spread queuers over all sockets or cores, no
matter how long the latency is.

An unfair lock can do things like "short cut to a very nearby thread".

Some unfairness tends to help with very small critical regions,
when you're not too much contended.

I would assume in cases where we don't expect all CPUs to bang 
on a lock it could be a good idea.

-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Newbies]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux