Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch 0/8] mutex subsystem, ANNOUNCE | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:00:23 +0100 |
| |
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/
| |