[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1231493305.11687.528.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:28:25 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
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 -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 11:13 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Chris Mason wrote:
> >
> > It is less fair though, the 50 proc parallel creates had a much bigger
> > span between the first and last proc's exit time. This isn't a huge
> > shock, I think it shows the hot path is closer to a real spin lock.
>
> Actually, the real spin locks are now fair. We use ticket locks on x86.
> We _could_ certainly aim for using ticket locks for mutexes too, that
> might be quite nice.
Not really, ticket locks cannot handle a spinner going away - and we
need that here.
I've googled around a bit and MCS locks
(http://www.cs.rice.edu/~johnmc/papers/asplos91.pdf) look like a viable
way to gain fairness in our situation.
--
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