Re: Better choice for Linux semaphore than spinlock?

t their involvement. One thing I didn't see was how/why did the discussion end up with the title "Better choice for Linux semaphore than spinlock?" That might be beside the point. > I can pull in additional experts from our team that were involved in > the analysis with Red Hat in detail.

RE: Better choice for Linux semaphore than spinlock?

Krotil, Radek (DI SW LCS PMT ALM) ; Subversion Developers Subject: Re: Better choice for Linux semaphore than spinlock? On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 6:45 AM Krotil, Radek mailto:radek.kro...@siemens.com>> wrote: Hi All. I believe this issue originates at one of our customer and is related how

Re: Better choice for Linux semaphore than spinlock?

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 6:45 AM Krotil, Radek wrote: > Hi All. > > I believe this issue originates at one of our customer and is related how > Polarion ALM is using Subversion at scale. This is a reoccurring issue > being encountered by several enterprise customers and I’d be more than > happy to

Re: Better choice for Linux semaphore than spinlock?

Hi All. I believe this issue originates at one of our customer and is related how Polarion ALM is using Subversion at scale. This is a reoccurring issue being encountered by several enterprise customers and I'd be more than happy to help the community to pin it down and get it fixed. Has there

Re: Better choice for Linux semaphore than spinlock?

Perhaps these links might be of help in some way: https://webkit.org/blog/6161/locking-in-webkit/ https://blog.mozilla.org/nfroyd/2017/03/29/on-mutex-performance-part-1/ https://preshing.com/2018/locks-arent-slow-lock-contention-is/ On Monday, October 7, 2019, 1:56:14 PM PDT, Doug Robinson

Re: Better choice for Linux semaphore than spinlock?

Rüdiger: On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:51 PM Ruediger Pluem wrote: > On 10/07/2019 08:40 PM, Branko Čibej wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, 19:47 Doug Robinson, > wrote: > > > > Folks: > > > > I spoke with this user late last week. They stated that they can

Re: Better choice for Linux semaphore than spinlock?

Brane: On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 2:40 PM Branko Čibej wrote: > On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, 19:47 Doug Robinson, > wrote: > >> I spoke with this user late last week. They stated that they can only >> get approximately 400 parallel SVN operations before the "system >> time" consumes all available CPU for

Re: Better choice for Linux semaphore than spinlock?

On 10/07/2019 08:40 PM, Branko Čibej wrote: > On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, 19:47 Doug Robinson, > wrote: > > Folks: > > I spoke with this user late last week. They stated that they can only > get approximately 400 parallel SVN operations > before the

Re: Better choice for Linux semaphore than spinlock?

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, 19:47 Doug Robinson, wrote: > Folks: > > I spoke with this user late last week. They stated that they can only get > approximately 400 parallel SVN operations before the "system time" consumes > all available CPU for an 8-core machine. Adding more cores won't help > because

Re: Better choice for Linux semaphore than spinlock?

Folks: I spoke with this user late last week. They stated that they can only get approximately 400 parallel SVN operations before the "system time" consumes all available CPU for an 8-core machine. Adding more cores won't help because of the nature of spin locks (it makes things worse). Turns

Better choice for Linux semaphore than spinlock?

Folks: >From a Subversion user: “... we have very high concurrent connections to Subversion that seem to crater Subversion. The SVN Serve process we use to access the Subversion repository is using the “svn” protocol by our “system user”, mostly read-only. Then, we, on behalf of the user make