lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH -v5][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning
Hi Ingo,

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Can I ask a simple question in light of all this discussion?
>>
>> "Is get_task_struct() really that bad?"
>>
>
> it dirties a cacheline and it also involves atomics.
>
Yes, understood. But we should note we are always going to be talking
about thrashing caches here since we are ultimately having one CPU
observe another. There's no way to get around that. I understand that
there are various degrees of this occurring, and I have no doubt that
the proposed improvements strive to achieve a reduction of that. My
question is really targeted at "at what cost".

Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating going back to get/put-task per
se. I am simply asking the question of whether we have taken the design
off into the weeds having lost sight of the actual requirements and/or
results. Its starting to smell like we have. This is just a friendly
reality check. Feel free to disregard. ;)

-Greg


[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-07 23:55    [W:0.155 / U:20.628 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site