[lkml]   [1999]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 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
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:54    [W:0.019 / U:0.980 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site