From: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>
To: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
Cc: 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: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 11:25:14 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3C62D49A.4CBB6295@zip.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3C629F91.2869CB1F@dlr.de>, <3C629F91.2869CB1F@dlr.de> <1013107259.10430.29.camel@phantasy>
Robert Love wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 10:38, Martin Wirth wrote:
> > This is a request for comment on a new locking primitive
> > called a combilock.
>
> Interesting ...
>
> The question I raise is, how many locks do we have where we have a
> single resource we lock where in some codepaths the lock is used for
> short duration and in other places the lock is long-duration?
Quite a few. Significant ones. pagemap_lru_lock and lru_list_lock
come to mind.
> It would be useful to identify a few locks where this would benefit and
> apply the appropriate combi variant and do some benchmarking.
>
> Some of the talk I've heard has been toward an adaptive lock. These are
> locks like Solaris's that can spin or sleep, usually depending on the
> state of the lock's holder. Another alternative, which I prefer since
> it is much less overhead, is a lock that spins-then-sleeps
> unconditionally.
I dunno. The spin-a-bit-then-sleep lock has always struck me as
i_dont_know_what_the_fuck_im_doing_lock(). Martin's approach puts
the decision in the hands of the programmer, rather than saying
"Oh gee I goofed" at runtime.
I need to think about all of this some more...
> ...
>
> > To really take any benefit from a preemptible kernel a lot of spin locks
> > will have to be replaced by mutex locks. The combi-lock approach may
> > convince more people who typically fear the higher scheduling pressure
> > of sleeping locks to do so, if they can decide on each instance which
> > approach (spin of sleep) will be taken.
>
> We shouldn't engage in wholesale changing of spinlocks to semaphores
> without a priority-inheritance mechanism. And _that_ is the bigger
> issue ...
hmmm.
Let's back off a bit. What are we trying to achieve here? What
problem are we trying to solve? Is it to allow preemptability
inside the infamous long-held locks? If so then I'd favour
a piecemeal approach to handling each one, rather than magic
bullets. Now it may be that certain of the locks are best handled
via a new primitive, but that's not obviously true at this time, to me.
-
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-02-07 19:27 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 [this message]
2002-02-07 19:51 ` Dave Hansen
2002-02-07 20:06 ` Andrew Morton
2002-02-07 20:11 ` Robert Love
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=3C62D49A.4CBB6295@zip.com.au \
--to=akpm@zip.com.au \
--cc=Martin.Wirth@dlr.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nigel@nrg.org \
--cc=rml@tech9.net \
/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.