[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0810201612210.22845@hs20-bc2-1.build.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:14:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, agk@...hat.com, mbroz@...hat.com,
chris@...chsys.com
Subject: Re: RFC: one-bit mutexes (was: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Memory management
livelock)
> > If you are concerned about the size of an inode, I can convert other
> > mutexes to bit mutexes: i_mutex and inotify_mutex.
>
> I wouldn't worry for now. mutexes can be unlocked much faster than bit
> mutexes, especially in the fastpath. And due to slab, it would be
> unlikely to actually save any space.
Maybe inotify_mutex. You are right that i_mutex is so heavily contended
that slowing it down to save few words wouldn't be good. Do you know about
any inotify-intensive workload?
> > I could also create
> > bit_spinlock (one-bit spinlock that uses test_and_set_bit) and save space
> > for address_space->tree_lock, address_space->i_mmap_lock,
> > address_space->private_lock, inode->i_lock.
>
> We have that already. It is much much faster to unlock spinlocks than
> bit spinlocks in general (if you own the word exclusively, then it's
> not, but then you would be less likely to save space), and we can also
> do proper FIFO ticket locks with a larger word.
BTW. why do spinlocks on x86(64) have 32 bits and not 8 bits or 16 bits?
Are atomic 32-bit instuctions faster?
Can x86(86) system have 256 CPUs?
Mikulas
--
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