[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100406145128.6324ac9a@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 14:51:28 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
"Peter W. Morreale" <pmorreale@...ell.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sdietrich@...ell.com>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
John Cooper <john.cooper@...rd-harmonic.com>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/6][RFC] futex: FUTEX_LOCK with optional adaptive
spinning
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:35:31 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 16:28 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but that's the best case for spinning. You could simply use a
> > userspace spinlock in this case.
>
> Userspace spinlocks are evil.. they should _never_ be used.
Thats a gross and inaccurate simplification. For the case Avi is talking
about spinning in userspace makes sense in a lot of environments. Once
you've got one thread pinned per cpu (or gang scheduling >-) ) there are
various environments where it makes complete and utter sense.
--
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