From: Stan Sieler <sieler@allegro.com>
To: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox)
Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox),
matthew@wil.cx (Matthew Wilcox), jes@linuxcare.com (Jes Sorensen),
alan@linuxcare.com.au (Alan Modra),
jsm@udlkern.fc.hp.com (John Marvin),
parisc-linux@thepuffingroup.com
Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] ldcw in __pthread_acquire
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 16:48:52 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200012180048.QAA03547@opus.allegro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E147oHg-0004n8-00@the-village.bc.nu> from "Alan Cox" at Dec 18, 2000 12:36:06 AM
Hi Alan,
As Lamont Jones agreed, lightweight system calls exist, and their
cost is on the order of a couple of instructions (typically the equivalent
of a missed branch prediction). HP-UX has some, Lamont speaks from experience
(as do I).
> > The apparent advantages are *strictly* short term. A single mistake
> > using a buzz lock from user code in a single process on a single computer
> > can cost more time than all properly implemented buzz locks ever save.
>
> The cost of a syscall against a rarely contended lock is huge. So you
Thus, it is *NOT* true that a syscall cost must be "huge".
You can say: I don't want to change it, or "we've always done it that way".
but, the one thing you can't accurately say is "this is the right way".
Been there, learned that, tried to share it with you, and am now
giving up on it.
--
Stan (still right :) Sieler
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-12-18 0:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-12-15 10:12 [parisc-linux] ldcw in __pthread_acquire John Marvin
2000-12-15 11:37 ` Alan Modra
2000-12-15 16:37 ` Matthew Wilcox
2000-12-15 17:32 ` Jes Sorensen
2000-12-16 19:29 ` Matthew Wilcox
2000-12-16 21:58 ` Jes Sorensen
2000-12-17 4:31 ` Alan Modra
2000-12-17 1:22 ` Stan Sieler
2000-12-17 2:38 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-17 4:18 ` LaMont Jones
2000-12-18 0:29 ` Stan Sieler
2000-12-18 0:36 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-18 0:48 ` Stan Sieler [this message]
2000-12-18 0:59 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-18 4:43 ` LaMont Jones
2000-12-18 11:53 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-18 12:27 ` Philippe Benard
2000-12-18 14:40 ` LaMont Jones
2000-12-18 19:44 ` Stan Sieler
2000-12-18 19:54 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-18 20:15 ` Stan Sieler
2000-12-18 20:44 ` LaMont Jones
2000-12-18 21:56 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-18 22:26 ` LaMont Jones
2000-12-18 7:10 ` Philippe Benard
2000-12-18 12:06 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-18 14:49 ` LaMont Jones
2000-12-18 15:59 ` Matthew Wilcox
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2000-12-15 10:26 John Marvin
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=200012180048.QAA03547@opus.allegro.com \
--to=sieler@allegro.com \
--cc=alan@linuxcare.com.au \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=jes@linuxcare.com \
--cc=jsm@udlkern.fc.hp.com \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=parisc-linux@thepuffingroup.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox