From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kiran@scalex86.org
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] queued spinlocks (i386)
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 13:41:28 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070324134128.7882f905.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070323103243.GE11577@wotan.suse.de>
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:32:44 +0100 Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> 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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-03-24 21:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-03-23 8:59 [rfc][patch] queued spinlocks (i386) Nick Piggin
2007-03-23 9:40 ` Eric Dumazet
2007-03-23 9:59 ` Nick Piggin
2007-03-23 19:27 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2007-03-23 10:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-03-23 10:10 ` Nick Piggin
2007-03-23 16:48 ` Parag Warudkar
2007-03-23 18:15 ` Davide Libenzi
2007-03-23 10:32 ` Nick Piggin
2007-03-23 10:40 ` Eric Dumazet
2007-03-23 11:02 ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-03-24 15:55 ` Nikita Danilov
2007-03-24 17:29 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-03-24 18:49 ` Nikita Danilov
2007-03-28 6:43 ` Nick Piggin
2007-03-28 19:26 ` Davide Libenzi
2007-03-28 22:00 ` Davide Libenzi
2007-03-29 1:36 ` Nick Piggin
2007-03-29 7:16 ` Nick Piggin
2007-03-30 0:27 ` Davide Libenzi
2007-03-30 1:59 ` Nick Piggin
2007-03-30 2:43 ` Davide Libenzi
2007-03-29 1:24 ` Nick Piggin
2007-03-24 21:41 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2007-03-28 6:56 ` Nick Piggin
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=20070324134128.7882f905.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kiran@scalex86.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
/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.