[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1270567769.20295.18.camel@laptop>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:29:29 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>
Cc: 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>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/6][RFC] futex: FUTEX_LOCK with optional adaptive
spinning
On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 13:23 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> Lastly, I should mention that these results all underperform a simple
> pthread_mutex_lock()/pthread_mutex_unlock() pair. I'm looking into why but felt
> I was overdue in sharing what I have to date. A test comparing this to a
> sched_yield() style userspace spinlock would probably be more appropraite.
This really should be able to out-perform a regular pthread_mutex_lock()
we saw a significant performance gain when we added adaptive spins to
the kernel mutex implementation, so I'd expect a gain on the futex one
as well.
--
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