[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080602230316.GA24159@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 01:03:17 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] 64-bit futexes: Intro
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > That bit can be used as a lock and if all access to the state of
> > that atomic variable uses it, arbitrary higher-order atomic state
> > transitions can be derived from it. The cost would be a bit more
> > instructions in the fastpath, but there would still only be a single
> > atomic op (the acquire op), as the unlock would be a natural barrier
> > (on x86 at least).
>
> No, "unlocks as a natural barrier" only works for exclusive kernel
> locks (spin_unlock and write_unlock). There we can just do a write to
> unlock. But for anything that wants to handle contention differently
> than just spinning, the unlock path needs to be able to do an atomic
> "unlock and test if I need to do something else", because it may need
> to wake things up.
yeah, indeed. Compared to all the other costs that have to be dealt with
here, having a second atomic op isnt all that much of an issue either,
especially on latest hw. An atomic op will probably never be as cheap as
a non-atomic op, but ~20 cycles is still plenty fast for most practical
purposes.
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