Message-ID: <20080222191419.GD6060@ucw.cz>
Date:	Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:14:20 +0100
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, tglx@...utronix.de,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bill.huey@...il.com,
	kevin@...man.org, cminyard@...sta.com, dsingleton@...sta.com,
	dwalker@...sta.com, npiggin@...e.de, dsaxena@...xity.net,
	ak@...e.de, gregkh@...e.de, sdietrich@...ell.com,
	pmorreale@...ell.com, mkohari@...ell.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH [RT] 07/14] adaptive real-time lock support

Hi!

> @@ -192,6 +192,26 @@ config RCU_TRACE
>  	  Say Y/M here if you want to enable RCU tracing in-kernel/module.
>  	  Say N if you are unsure.
>  
> +config ADAPTIVE_RTLOCK
> +        bool "Adaptive real-time locks"
> +	default y

tabs vs. spaces.

> +	 If unsure, say Y

Missing dot?

> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
>   *  Copyright (C) 2005-2006 Timesys Corp., Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...esys.com>
>   *  Copyright (C) 2005 Kihon Technologies Inc., Steven Rostedt
>   *  Copyright (C) 2006 Esben Nielsen
> + *  Copyright (C) 2008 Novell, Inc.

It would be nice to list some names, too.

> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/kernel/rtmutex_adaptive.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
> +/*
> + * Adaptive RT lock support
> + *
> + * There are pros and cons when deciding between the two basic forms of
> + * locking primitives (spinning vs sleeping).  Without going into great
> + * detail on either one, we note that spinlocks have the advantage of
> + * lower overhead for short hold locks.  However, they also have a
> + * con in that they create indeterminate latencies since preemption
> + * must traditionally be disabled while the lock is held (to prevent deadlock).
> + *
> + * We want to avoid non-deterministic critical sections in -rt. Therefore,
> + * when realtime is enabled, most contexts are converted to threads, and
> + * likewise most spinlock_ts are converted to sleepable rt-mutex derived
> + * locks.  This allows the holder of the lock to remain fully preemptible,
> + * thus reducing a major source of latencies in the kernel.
> + *
> + * However, converting what was once a true spinlock into a sleeping lock
> + * may also decrease performance since the locks will now sleep under
> + * contention.  Since the fundamental lock used to be a spinlock, it is
> + * highly likely that it was used in a short-hold path and that release
> + * is imminent.  Therefore sleeping only serves to cause context-thrashing.
> + *
> + * Adaptive RT locks use a hybrid approach to solve the problem.  They
> + * spin when possible, and sleep when necessary (to avoid deadlock, etc).
> + * This significantly improves many areas of the performance of the -rt
> + * kernel.
> + *
> + * Copyright (C) 2008 Novell, Inc.,
> + *          Sven Dietrich, Peter Morreale, and Gregory Haskins

GPL?

> +/*
> + * Adaptive-rtlocks will busywait when possible, and sleep only if
> + * necessary. Note that the busyloop looks racy, and it is....but we do
> + * not care. If we lose any races it simply means that we spin one more
> + * time before seeing that we need to break-out on the next iteration.
> + *
> + * We realize this is a relatively large function to inline, but note that
> + * it is only instantiated 1 or 2 times max, and it makes a measurable
> + * performance different to avoid the call.
> + *
> + * Returns 1 if we should sleep
> + *
> + */

Kerneldoc?

							Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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