From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 10:59:05 +1100 Message-ID: <49693649.1020406@goop.org> References: <1231441350.14304.48.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Chris Mason , Steven Rostedt , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Gregory Haskins , Matthew Wilcox , Andi Kleen , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , linux-btrfs , Thomas Gleixner , Nick Piggin , Peter Morreale , Sven Dietrich To: Linus Torvalds Return-path: Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:47685 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752176AbZAJX7O (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:59:14 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Linus Torvalds wrote: > Actually, the real spin locks are now fair. We use ticket locks on x86. > > Well, at least we do unless you enable that broken paravirt support. I'm > not at all clear on why CONFIG_PARAVIRT wants to use inferior locks, but I > don't much care. > No, it will continue to use ticket locks, but there's the option to switch to byte locks or something else. Ticket locks are awesomely bad when the VCPU scheduler fights with the run-order required by the ticket order. J