[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901071516280.3057@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:18:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
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>,
Peter Morreale <pmorreale@...ell.com>,
Sven Dietrich <SDietrich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v5][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > "Is get_task_struct() really that bad?"
>
> Yes. It's an atomic access (two, in fact, since you need to release it
> too), which is a huge deal if we're talking about a timing-critical
> section of code.
There's another issue: you also need to lock the thing that gives you the
task pointer in the first place. So it's not sufficient to do
get_task_struct(), you also need to do it within a context where you know
that the pointer is not going away _while_ you do it.
And with the mutexes clearing the ->owner field without even holding the
spinlock, that is not a guarantee we can easily get any way. Maybe we'd
need to hold the tasklist_lock or something.
Linus
--
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