From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mutex: add support for reservation style locks, v2 Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:41:02 +0200 Message-ID: <1365093662.2609.111.camel@laptop> References: <20130228102452.15191.22673.stgit@patser> <20130228102502.15191.14146.stgit@patser> <1364900432.18374.24.camel@laptop> <515AF1C1.7080508@canonical.com> <1364921954.20640.22.camel@laptop> <1365076908.2609.94.camel@laptop> <20130404133123.GW2228@phenom.ffwll.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130404133123.GW2228@phenom.ffwll.local> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Vetter Cc: Maarten Lankhorst , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, robclark@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, linux-media@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 15:31 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > The thing is now that you're not expected to hold these locks for a > long > time - if you need to synchronously stall while holding a lock > performance > will go down the gutters anyway. And since most current > gpus/co-processors > still can't really preempt fairness isn't that high a priority, > either. > So we didn't think too much about that. Yeah but you're proposing a new synchronization primitive for the core kernel.. all such 'fun' details need to be considered, not only those few that bear on the one usecase. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from 173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.166.109.252]:52426 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762896Ab3DDQlO (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Apr 2013 12:41:14 -0400 Received: from dhcp-089-099-019-018.chello.nl ([89.99.19.18] helo=dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1UNnDt-0005jF-Sg for linux-arch@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:41:14 +0000 Message-ID: <1365093662.2609.111.camel@laptop> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mutex: add support for reservation style locks, v2 From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:41:02 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20130404133123.GW2228@phenom.ffwll.local> References: <20130228102452.15191.22673.stgit@patser> <20130228102502.15191.14146.stgit@patser> <1364900432.18374.24.camel@laptop> <515AF1C1.7080508@canonical.com> <1364921954.20640.22.camel@laptop> <1365076908.2609.94.camel@laptop> <20130404133123.GW2228@phenom.ffwll.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Daniel Vetter Cc: Maarten Lankhorst , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, robclark@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, linux-media@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20130404164102.TYXFgRhVcTp2YF23Lm8Nij4SOKJCWS4IC80DgY-byTU@z> On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 15:31 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > The thing is now that you're not expected to hold these locks for a > long > time - if you need to synchronously stall while holding a lock > performance > will go down the gutters anyway. And since most current > gpus/co-processors > still can't really preempt fairness isn't that high a priority, > either. > So we didn't think too much about that. Yeah but you're proposing a new synchronization primitive for the core kernel.. all such 'fun' details need to be considered, not only those few that bear on the one usecase.