Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Sep 1999 22:06:48 +0200 (CEST) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: possible spinlock optimizations |
| |
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Chuck Lever wrote:
> there really isn't any reason to cut off all interrupts (on dual CPU > hardware) while waiting for an IRQ-masked critical section, especially if > you can handle an interrupt during the time you were spinning rather than > the time you were supposed to be running in the critical section. > > essentially you're saying that you want to be sure that the bad cases are > visible so we can fix them. there would still be tools to measure how > contended are specific spinlocks. i would prefer using such a tool since > it gives me empirical data, rather than waiting to experience slight > jerkiness in my GUI, for instance. in other words, why do we need to > prevent a subjective improvement to preserve a subjective indicator of > spinlock contention?
well, if i had to choose between 'look, our router benchmark goes 5% faster' and 'look, although it makes no visible difference, it makes the spinlock profile look better', i sure know which i prefer :)
(are you suggesting that increased performance as a development incentive does not work? Ask Andrea! :) )
> (more time at the pub might be an acceptible answer :)
;)
-- mingo
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |