[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyH_BUrrzft-1JGZ5zL=KxGrUESBBOZnzT=nQm6Ld0V+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:38:13 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/5] qrwlock: Enable fair queue read/write lock
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
>
> FWIW unfair can be faster in some cases. It depends on the workload.
Sure. And we've never cared before.
When we switched over to the ticket spinlocks, we actually had
*numbers* about how the old unfair spinlocks could be faster. And we
still didn't leave a "unfair spinlocks" option. Because it didn't make
sense.
Why would it make sense here?
Linus
--
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