[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <17925.18904.820106.145029@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:55:04 +0300
From: Nikita Danilov <nikita@...sterfs.com>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] queued spinlocks (i386)
Nick Piggin writes:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 11:04:18AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Implement queued spinlocks for i386. [...]
> >
> > isnt this patented by MS? (which might not worry you SuSE/Novell guys,
> > but it might be a worry for the rest of the world ;-)
>
> Hmm, it looks like they have implemented a system where the spinning
> cpu sleeps on a per-CPU variable rather than the lock itself, and
> the releasing cpu writes to that variable to wake it. They do this
> so that spinners don't continually perform exclusive->shared
> transitions on the lock cacheline. They call these things queued
> spinlocks. They don't seem to be very patent worthy either, but
Indeed, this technique is very well known. E.g.,
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/anderson01sharedmemory.html has a whole
section (3. Local-spin Algorithms) on them, citing papers from the 1990
onward.
Nikita.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists