Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 May 2005 17:23:45 -0400 | From | john cooper <> | Subject | Re: RT patch acceptance |
| |
Sven-Thorsten Dietrich wrote: > On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 16:38 -0400, john cooper wrote: >>Spin if the lock is contended and the owner is active >>on a cpu under the assumption the lock owner's average >>hold time is less than that of a context switch. There >>are restrictions as once a path holds an adaptive >>mutex as a spin lock it cannot acquire another adaptive >>mutex as a blocking lock. > > It might be simpler to get things working with a basic implementation > first, (status quo), and then look into adding something like this.
I wasn't suggesting this is the time to consider doing so, but rather pointing it out as an available optimization.
> I don't see how this approach decreases the complexity of the task at > hand, especially not in regards to concurrency.
It increases the efficiency of the mutex as we don't incur context switches (in general) unless necessary. Concurrency isn't fundamentally affected.
-john
-- john.cooper@timesys.com - 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/
| |