lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: SMP syncronization on AMD processors (broken?)
Andi Kleen a écrit :
> Kirill Korotaev <dev@sw.ru> writes:
>
>
>>Please help with a not simple question about spin_lock/spin_unlock on
>>SMP archs. The question is whether concurrent spin_lock()'s should
>>acquire it in more or less "fair" fashinon or one of CPUs can starve
>>any arbitrary time while others do reacquire it in a loop.
>
>
> They are not fully fair because of the NUMAness of the system.
> Same on many other NUMA systems.
>
> We considered long ago to use queued locks to avoid this, but
> they are quite costly for the uncongested case and never seemed worth it.
>
> So live with it.

Unrelated, but that reminds me that current spinlock implementation on x86
imply that NR_CPUS should be < 128.

Maybe we should reflect this in Kconfig ?

config NR_CPUS
range 2 128

Or use a plain int for spinlock, instead of a signed char.

Eric
-
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: 2005-10-06 15:53    [W:0.145 / U:0.516 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site