![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Well currently it just enables preempt and spins like a mad man until the > > lock is free. The idea is to allow preempt to get some scheduling done > > during the spin.. But! if you accept this patch today, you get the > > i386 version which will allow your processor to halt until a write to the > > lock occurs whilst allowing interrupts to also trigger the preempt > > scheduling, much easier on the caches. > > > > That's the idea though isn't it? If your locks are significantly more > expensive than a context switch and associated cache trashing, use a > semaphore, hypervisor or no. > > I presume the hypervisor switch much incur the same sorts of costs as > a context switch? In the PPC64 and P4/HT case the spinning on a lock is a bad utilisation of the execution resources and that's what we're really trying to avoid, not necessarily cache thrashing from a context switch. Zwane - 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/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||