[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1301059770.14261.187.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:29:30 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mutex: Apply adaptive spinning on mutex_trylock()
On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 09:10 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> One solution is to have this be only done on explicit trylocks. Perhaps
> introduce a mutex_trylock_spin()? Then when the developer knows that
> this scenario does not exist, they can convert mutex_trylocks() into
> this spinning version.
>
I'm not sure this is even worth it, as I'm looking at the
btfs/extend-tree.c code, this is the main reason to use mutex_trylock().
I guess what you see in your benchmarks is that trylock contention
happens mostly in the non-deadlock scenario. But I bet you have
latencies when it does happen, but the benefit seems to out weigh it in
the results.
I wonder what happens if you run dbench as an RT task.
-- Steve
--
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