[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130409222808.GC20739@home.goodmis.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 18:28:08 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, daniel.vetter@...ll.ch, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org, robclark@...il.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu, linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mutex: add support for reservation style locks, v2
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 06:41:02PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 15:31 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > The thing is now that you're not expected to hold these locks for a
> > long
> > time - if you need to synchronously stall while holding a lock
> > performance
> > will go down the gutters anyway. And since most current
> > gpus/co-processors
> > still can't really preempt fairness isn't that high a priority,
> > either.
> > So we didn't think too much about that.
>
> Yeah but you're proposing a new synchronization primitive for the core
> kernel.. all such 'fun' details need to be considered, not only those
> few that bear on the one usecase.
Which bares the question, what other use cases are there?
-- 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