Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC] New locking primitive for 2.5 | From | Robert Love <> | Date | 07 Feb 2002 15:11:46 -0500 |
| |
On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 15:06, Andrew Morton wrote:
> A dynamic lock which says "we've spun for too long, let's sleep" > seems to be a tradeoff between programmer effort and efficiency, > and a bad one at that.
I'm not so sure. What if we can't _know_ how long the lock will be held because we don't know the status of the holder? What if _he_ is sleeping on some other lock or their are a lot of contending processes?
Certainly I agree, we need to put forth effort into designing things right and with a minimal amount of lock held time.
> Possibly the locks could become more adaptive, and could, at > each call site, "learn" the expected spintime. But it all seems > too baroque to me.
Agreed, this is much too much ;-)
Robert Love
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |