From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC]: mutex: adaptive spin Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:16:43 +0100 Message-ID: <20090106131643.GA15228@elte.hu> References: <1230722935.4680.5.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <20081231104533.abfb1cf9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1230765549.7538.8.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <87r63ljzox.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20090103191706.GA2002@parisc-linux.org> <1231093310.27690.5.camel@twins> <20090104184103.GE2002@parisc-linux.org> <1231242031.11687.97.camel@twins> <20090106121052.GA27232@elte.hu> <4963584A.4090805@novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Matthew Wilcox , Andi Kleen , Chris Mason , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel , linux-btrfs , Thomas Gleixner , Steven Rostedt , Nick Piggin , Linus Torvalds To: Gregory Haskins Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4963584A.4090805@novell.com> List-ID: * Gregory Haskins wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > There's no time or spin-rate based heuristics in this at all (i.e. these > > mutexes are not 'adaptive' at all!), > > FYI: The original "adaptive" name was chosen in the -rt implementation > to reflect that the locks can adaptively spin or sleep, depending on > conditions. I realize this is in contrast to the typical usage of the > term when it is in reference to the spin-time being based on some > empirical heuristics, etc as you mentioned. Sorry for the confusion. the current version of the -rt spinny-mutexes bits were mostly written by Steve, right? Historically it all started out with a more classic "adaptive mutexes" patchset so the name stuck i guess. Ingo