[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [rfc][patch] queued spinlocks (i386)
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:32:44 +0100 Nick Piggin <> wrote:
> I'm not as concerned about the contended performance of spinlocks

The contended case matters. Back in 2.5.something I screwed up the debug
version of one of the locks (rwlock, iirc) - it was simply missing a
cpu_relax(), and some people's benchmarks halved.

> This was just something I had in mind when the hardware lock
> starvation issue came up

It looks like a good way to address the lru_lock starvation/capture
problem. But I think I'd be more comfortable if we were to introduce it as
a new lock type, rather than as a reimplementation of the existing
spin_lock(). Initially, at least.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-03-24 22:45    [W:0.088 / U:6.148 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site