[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901071529530.3057@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:32:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
cc: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
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>,
Peter Morreale <pmorreale@...ell.com>,
Sven Dietrich <SDietrich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v5][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> What would be interesting is various benchmarks against all three.
>
> 1) no mutex spinning.
> 2) get_task_struct() implementation.
> 3) spin_or_sched implementation.
One of the issues is that I cannot convince myself that (2) is even
necessarily correct. At least not without having all cases happen inder
the mutex spinlock - which they don't. Even with the original patch, the
uncontended cases set and cleared the owner field outside the lock.
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