[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [rfc][patch] queued spinlocks (i386)
    > On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:32:44 +0100 Nick Piggin <> wrote:
    > I'm not as concerned about the contended performance of spinlocks

    The contended case matters. Back in 2.5.something I screwed up the debug
    version of one of the locks (rwlock, iirc) - it was simply missing a
    cpu_relax(), and some people's benchmarks halved.

    > This was just something I had in mind when the hardware lock
    > starvation issue came up

    It looks like a good way to address the lru_lock starvation/capture
    problem. But I think I'd be more comfortable if we were to introduce it as
    a new lock type, rather than as a reimplementation of the existing
    spin_lock(). Initially, at least.
    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: 2007-03-24 22:45    [W:0.021 / U:1.876 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site