lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [patch 0/8] mutex subsystem, ANNOUNCE
From
Date
On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 18:56 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It would be nice to first do a run with a fair implementation of
> >>mutexes.
> >
> >
> > which fairness implementation do you mean - the one where all tasks will
> > get the lock in fair FIFO order, and a 'lucky bastard' cannot steal the
> > lock from waiters and thus put them at an indefinite disadvantage?
> >
>
> I guess so. I'm not so worried about the rare 'lucky bastard' ie. a
> lock request coming in concurrently, but rather the naturally favoured
> 'this CPU' taking the lock again after waking up the head waiter but
> before it gets a chance to run / transfer the cacheline.

that's just the most evil lucky bastard....


-
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: 2005-12-22 09:03    [W:0.053 / U:0.468 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site