[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703291215440.1199@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Nikita Danilov <nikita@...sterfs.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] queued spinlocks (i386)
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/28, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> > Well with my queued spinlocks, all that lockbreak stuff can just come out
> > of the spin_lock, break_lock out of the spinlock structure, and
> > need_lockbreak just becomes (lock->qhead - lock->qtail > 1).
>
> Q: queued spinlocks are not CONFIG_PREEMPT friendly,
Why? Is CONFIG_PREEMPT friendly to anyone? :)
> > + asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "xaddw %0, %1\n\t"
> > + : "+r" (pos), "+m" (lock->qhead) : : "memory");
> > + while (unlikely(pos != lock->qtail))
> > + cpu_relax();
>
> once we incremented lock->qhead, we have no optiion but should spin with
> preemption disabled until pos == lock->qtail, yes?
Yes, preemption and deterministic spinlock policies are not friends.
- Davide
-
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