[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49693649.1020406@goop.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 10:59:05 +1100
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Actually, the real spin locks are now fair. We use ticket locks on x86.
>
> Well, at least we do unless you enable that broken paravirt support. I'm
> not at all clear on why CONFIG_PARAVIRT wants to use inferior locks, but I
> don't much care.
>
No, it will continue to use ticket locks, but there's the option to
switch to byte locks or something else. Ticket locks are awesomely bad
when the VCPU scheduler fights with the run-order required by the ticket
order.
J
--
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