linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v8][RFC] mutex: implement adaptive spinning

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1231933366.7141.28.camel@twins>
Date:	Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:42:46 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Folkert van Heusden <folkert@...heusden.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v8][RFC] mutex: implement adaptive spinning

On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 12:41 +0100, Folkert van Heusden wrote:
> > The key criteria for the busy wait is that the lock owner has to be running on
> > a (different) cpu. The idea is that as long as the owner is running, there is a
> > fair chance it'll release the lock soon, and thus we'll be better off spinning
> > instead of blocking/scheduling.
> 
> Won't this make Linux less "green"? (-> use more power since busy loops
> use more power than idle loops) If so, maybe it should be make
> configurable somewhere?

According to the 'race to idle' paradigm this would actually help making
it more green, since it increases throughput.
--
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/