[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090106131643.GA15228@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:16:43 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC]: mutex: adaptive spin
* Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > There's no time or spin-rate based heuristics in this at all (i.e. these
> > mutexes are not 'adaptive' at all!),
>
> FYI: The original "adaptive" name was chosen in the -rt implementation
> to reflect that the locks can adaptively spin or sleep, depending on
> conditions. I realize this is in contrast to the typical usage of the
> term when it is in reference to the spin-time being based on some
> empirical heuristics, etc as you mentioned. Sorry for the confusion.
the current version of the -rt spinny-mutexes bits were mostly written by
Steve, right? Historically it all started out with a more classic
"adaptive mutexes" patchset so the name stuck i guess.
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