[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1004062011070.32352@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 20:15:40 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 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, 6 Apr 2010, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > IMO the best solution is to spin in userspace while the lock holder is
> > > running, fall into the kernel when it is scheduled out.
> >
> > That's just not realistic as user space has no idea whether the lock
> > holder is running or not and when it's scheduled out without a syscall :)
>
> Which is the real problem that wants addressing and can be addressed very
> cheaply. That would bring us up to par with 1970s RTOS environments ;)
Well, 1970's RTOSes had other features as well like preemption disable
mechanisms and other interesting stuff. I hope you're not going to
propose that next to bring us up to par with those :)
Thanks,
tglx
--
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