[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1231370064.3470.516.camel@hermosa.site>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:14:24 +0000
From: "Peter W. Morreale" <pmorreale@...ell.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Sven Dietrich <SDietrich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v5][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 15:51 -0700, Peter W. Morreale wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 23:33 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Can I ask a simple question in light of all this discussion?
> > >
> > > "Is get_task_struct() really that bad?"
> >
> > it dirties a cacheline and it also involves atomics.
> >
> > Also, it's a small design cleanliness issue to me: get_task_struct()
> > impacts the lifetime of an object - and if a locking primitive has
> > side-effects on object lifetimes that's never nice.
> >
>
> True, but it's for one iteration * NR_CPUS, max.
>
> Best,
> -PWM
Never mind. Bogus argument.
That's why we have you Big Guns out there... - To keep us rif-raf in
line...
:-)
Best,
-PWM
--
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