lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [rfc][patch] queued spinlocks (i386)
    On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:

    > On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 06:29:59PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > >
    > > * Nikita Danilov <nikita@clusterfs.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Indeed, this technique is very well known. E.g.,
    > > > http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/anderson01sharedmemory.html has a whole
    > > > section (3. Local-spin Algorithms) on them, citing papers from the
    > > > 1990 onward.
    > >
    > > that is a cool reference! So i'd suggest to do (redo?) the patch based
    > > on those concepts and that terminology and not use 'queued spinlocks'
    > > that are commonly associated with MS's stuff. And as a result the
    > > contended case would be optimized some more via local-spin algorithms.
    > > (which is not a key thing for us, but which would be nice to have
    > > nevertheless)
    >
    > Firstly, the terminology in that paper _is_ "queue lock", which isn't
    > really surprising. I don't really know or care about what MS calls their
    > locks, but I'd suggest that their queued spinlock is probably named in
    > reference to its queueing property rather than its local spin property.

    The method you propose is otherwise called "Ticket Lock":

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticket_lock
    http://www.cs.rochester.edu/research/synchronization/pseudocode/ss.html#ticket




    - Davide


    -
    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: 2007-03-28 21:29    [W:0.026 / U:2.432 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site