From: LaMont Jones <lamont@hp.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: sieler@allegro.com (Stan Sieler), matthew@wil.cx (Matthew Wilcox),
jes@linuxcare.com (Jes Sorensen),
alan@linuxcare.com.au (Alan Modra),
jsm@udlkern.fc.hp.com (John Marvin),
parisc-linux@thepuffingroup.com, lamont@hp.com
Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] ldcw in __pthread_acquire
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 21:43:59 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20001218044410.DA2DE1872C@security.hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 18 Dec 2000 00:59:09 GMT." <E147oe0-0004pC-00@the-village.bc.nu>
> x86 is about 50 clocks to do a syscall so the maths is strongly in favour
> of user mode spins.
It really comes down to what is the cost to get into kernel mode, as
compared to the cost of dealing with the atomicity problems that come
in when you try to implement locking completely in user space.
In the ideal world, I think that what we want is a libc entry point that
we can use for semaphoring (msem_lock comes to mind...), which the lib
(in arch specific code) either implements in a mixture of user/kernel
space, or (if you can get to kernel mode cheaply), does it in kernel mode
via a lightweight system call.
Note also that spinning in a ldcw is very painful for the bus, and
switching to a ldw-loop followed by ldcw results in starvation in a
greater-than-2-way MP system.
lamont
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-12-18 4:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-12-15 10:12 [parisc-linux] ldcw in __pthread_acquire John Marvin
2000-12-15 11:37 ` Alan Modra
2000-12-15 16:37 ` Matthew Wilcox
2000-12-15 17:32 ` Jes Sorensen
2000-12-16 19:29 ` Matthew Wilcox
2000-12-16 21:58 ` Jes Sorensen
2000-12-17 4:31 ` Alan Modra
2000-12-17 1:22 ` Stan Sieler
2000-12-17 2:38 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-17 4:18 ` LaMont Jones
2000-12-18 0:29 ` Stan Sieler
2000-12-18 0:36 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-18 0:48 ` Stan Sieler
2000-12-18 0:59 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-18 4:43 ` LaMont Jones [this message]
2000-12-18 11:53 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-18 12:27 ` Philippe Benard
2000-12-18 14:40 ` LaMont Jones
2000-12-18 19:44 ` Stan Sieler
2000-12-18 19:54 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-18 20:15 ` Stan Sieler
2000-12-18 20:44 ` LaMont Jones
2000-12-18 21:56 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-18 22:26 ` LaMont Jones
2000-12-18 7:10 ` Philippe Benard
2000-12-18 12:06 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-18 14:49 ` LaMont Jones
2000-12-18 15:59 ` Matthew Wilcox
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2000-12-15 10:26 John Marvin
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=20001218044410.DA2DE1872C@security.hp.com \
--to=lamont@hp.com \
--cc=alan@linuxcare.com.au \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=jes@linuxcare.com \
--cc=jsm@udlkern.fc.hp.com \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=parisc-linux@thepuffingroup.com \
--cc=sieler@allegro.com \
/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.