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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site