[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070716094940.GA23080@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:49:40 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch 2/2] x86_64: FIFO ticket spinlocks
* Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 11:26:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:
> >
> > > [...] trylock is more significantly slower, but they are relatively
> > > rare.
> >
> > trylock is the main thing that the spinlock debugging code uses, and
> > SPINLOCK_DEBUG is frequently enabled by distro kernels. OTOH, the cost
> > looks like to be +5 instructions, right? Still ...
>
> Which trylocks do you mean? The lockbreak spinlocks use trylock, but
> those are not used with the ticket version.
the trylocks in lib/spinlock-debug.c:
static void __spin_lock_debug(spinlock_t *lock)
{
...
if (__raw_spin_trylock(&lock->raw_lock))
return;
...
void _raw_spin_lock(spinlock_t *lock)
{
debug_spin_lock_before(lock);
if (unlikely(!__raw_spin_trylock(&lock->raw_lock)))
__spin_lock_debug(lock);
debug_spin_lock_after(lock);
}
am i missing something?
Ingo
-
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