lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] New locking primitive for 2.5
Robert Love wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 10:38, Martin Wirth wrote:
> > This is a request for comment on a new locking primitive
> > called a combilock.
>
> Interesting ...
>
> The question I raise is, how many locks do we have where we have a
> single resource we lock where in some codepaths the lock is used for
> short duration and in other places the lock is long-duration?

Quite a few. Significant ones. pagemap_lru_lock and lru_list_lock
come to mind.

> It would be useful to identify a few locks where this would benefit and
> apply the appropriate combi variant and do some benchmarking.
>
> Some of the talk I've heard has been toward an adaptive lock. These are
> locks like Solaris's that can spin or sleep, usually depending on the
> state of the lock's holder. Another alternative, which I prefer since
> it is much less overhead, is a lock that spins-then-sleeps
> unconditionally.

I dunno. The spin-a-bit-then-sleep lock has always struck me as
i_dont_know_what_the_fuck_im_doing_lock(). Martin's approach puts
the decision in the hands of the programmer, rather than saying
"Oh gee I goofed" at runtime.

I need to think about all of this some more...

> ...
>
> > To really take any benefit from a preemptible kernel a lot of spin locks
> > will have to be replaced by mutex locks. The combi-lock approach may
> > convince more people who typically fear the higher scheduling pressure
> > of sleeping locks to do so, if they can decide on each instance which
> > approach (spin of sleep) will be taken.
>
> We shouldn't engage in wholesale changing of spinlocks to semaphores
> without a priority-inheritance mechanism. And _that_ is the bigger
> issue ...

hmmm.

Let's back off a bit. What are we trying to achieve here? What
problem are we trying to solve? Is it to allow preemptability
inside the infamous long-held locks? If so then I'd favour
a piecemeal approach to handling each one, rather than magic
bullets. Now it may be that certain of the locks are best handled
via a new primitive, but that's not obviously true at this time, to me.

-
-
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: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.172 / U:15.688 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site