All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>
Cc: Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>,
	Martin Wirth <Martin.Wirth@dlr.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, nigel@nrg.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] New locking primitive for 2.5
Date: 07 Feb 2002 15:11:46 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1013112717.10430.79.camel@phantasy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3C62DE3E.DE15CAF2@zip.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <3C629F91.2869CB1F@dlr.de>,		<3C629F91.2869CB1F@dlr.de> <1013107259.10430.29.camel@phantasy> <3C62D49A.4CBB6295@zip.com.au> <3C62DABA.3020906@us.ibm.com>  <3C62DE3E.DE15CAF2@zip.com.au>

On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 15:06, Andrew Morton wrote:

> A dynamic lock which says "we've spun for too long, let's sleep"
> seems to be a tradeoff between programmer effort and efficiency,
> and a bad one at that.

I'm not so sure.  What if we can't _know_ how long the lock will be held
because we don't know the status of the holder?  What if _he_ is
sleeping on some other lock or their are a lot of contending processes?

Certainly I agree, we need to put forth effort into designing things
right and with a minimal amount of lock held time.

> Possibly the locks could become more adaptive, and could, at
> each call site, "learn" the expected spintime.  But it all seems
> too baroque to me.

Agreed, this is much too much ;-)

	Robert Love


  reply	other threads:[~2002-02-07 20:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-02-07 15:38 [RFC] New locking primitive for 2.5 Martin Wirth
2002-02-07 18:04 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-02-07 18:06   ` Richard Gooch
2002-02-07 18:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-02-07 19:33   ` Daniel Phillips
2002-02-07 19:55   ` Mark Frazer
2002-02-08 12:24   ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-02-07 18:40 ` Robert Love
2002-02-07 19:25   ` Andrew Morton
2002-02-07 19:51     ` Dave Hansen
2002-02-07 20:06       ` Andrew Morton
2002-02-07 20:11         ` Robert Love [this message]
2002-02-07 21:27     ` Ingo Molnar
2002-02-07 19:59       ` Andrew Morton
2002-02-08  8:20     ` Nigel Gamble
2002-02-08 17:06       ` Larry McVoy
2002-02-07 19:58   ` yodaiken
2002-02-07 20:08     ` Robert Love
2002-02-07 20:15       ` yodaiken
2002-02-07 20:20         ` Robert Love
2002-02-07 20:36           ` yodaiken
2002-02-07 20:57             ` Daniel Phillips
2002-02-07 21:00               ` yodaiken
2002-02-07 21:10                 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-02-07 20:49   ` Martin Wirth
2002-02-08  8:34   ` Martin Wirth
2002-02-08 18:28     ` Linus Torvalds
2002-02-08 18:12       ` Martin Wirth
2002-02-08 18:33         ` Alexander Viro
2002-02-08 20:02         ` Linus Torvalds
2002-02-08 18:54           ` Andrew Morton
2002-02-08 19:11             ` Linus Torvalds
2002-02-08 19:21               ` Alexander Viro
2002-02-08 19:36                 ` Robert Love
2002-02-09  0:18                   ` Alexander Viro
2002-02-08 21:23                 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-02-08 21:36                   ` Linus Torvalds
2002-02-08 20:04                     ` Jeff Garzik
2002-02-08 21:16                       ` Mike Fedyk
2002-02-09  0:09                         ` Alan Cox
2002-02-09  0:05                           ` Mike Fedyk
2002-02-08 21:40                       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2002-02-09 19:32                         ` Linus Torvalds
2002-02-07 19:56 ` yodaiken
2002-02-07 22:09   ` Ingo Molnar
2002-02-07 20:31     ` yodaiken
2002-02-07 20:57       ` Andrew Morton
2002-02-07 21:02         ` yodaiken
2002-02-08 12:31     ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-02-08 16:51       ` Nigel Gamble
2002-02-08 18:41       ` Andrew Morton
2002-02-08 20:47         ` Ingo Molnar
2002-02-08 18:56           ` Alexander Viro
2002-02-08 20:59             ` Ingo Molnar
2002-02-08 19:10               ` Alexander Viro
2002-02-08 20:14       ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-02-08 20:38         ` yodaiken
2002-02-08 21:55         ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-02-08 12:47   ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-02-08 15:13     ` yodaiken
2002-02-08 19:22 ` Horst von Brand

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1013112717.10430.79.camel@phantasy \
    --to=rml@tech9.net \
    --cc=Martin.Wirth@dlr.de \
    --cc=akpm@zip.com.au \
    --cc=haveblue@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=nigel@nrg.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.