From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 06:13:12 -0700 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation Message-ID: <20051213131312.GJ9286@parisc-linux.org> References: <439E122E.3080902@yahoo.com.au> <20051213101300.GA2178@elte.hu> <20051213103420.GA6681@elte.hu> <200512131347.30464.oliver@neukum.org> <1134479371.11732.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1134479371.11732.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> To: Alan Cox Cc: Oliver Neukum , Ingo Molnar , David Howells , Nick Piggin , torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, hch@infradead.org, arjan@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 01:09:31PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > On Maw, 2005-12-13 at 13:47 +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > Can't you use the pointer as a hash input? > > Some platforms already do this for certain sets of operations like > atomic_t. The downside however is that you no longer control the lock > contention or cache line bouncing. It becomes a question of luck rather > than science as to how well it scales. s/luck/statistics/ You can always increase the size of the hash table if you encounter scaling problems.