[lkml]   [2005]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: SMP syncronization on AMD processors (broken?)
Andi Kleen a écrit :
> Kirill Korotaev <> 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.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-10-06 15:53    [W:0.124 / U:1.596 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site