public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, john cooper <john.cooper@timesys.com>
Subject: Re: spinaphore conceptual draft (was discussion of RT patch)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 22:02:45 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1117245765.6477.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <934f64a205052715315c21d722@mail.gmail.com>

One thing you are forgetting is that we are not just talking about the
latencies of contention.  We are talking about the latency of a high
priority process when it wakes up to the time it runs.  Most of the time
a spin lock stops preemption, either with (CONFIG_PREEMPT)
preempt_disable or simple turning off interrupts.  With Ingo's mutexes,
the places with spin_locks are now preemptable.  So there is probably
lots of times that it would be better to just spin on contention, but
that's not what Ingo's spin_locks are saving us.  It's to keep most of
the kernel preemptable.

The priority inheritance of spin_locks is simply there to protect from
priority inversion.

-- Steve



  parent reply	other threads:[~2005-05-28  2:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-05-27 22:31 spinaphore conceptual draft (was discussion of RT patch) David Nicol
2005-05-28  1:04 ` Kyle Moffett
2005-05-29  5:25   ` David Nicol
2005-05-29 13:41     ` Kyle Moffett
2005-05-29  8:42   ` Nikita Danilov
2005-05-29 13:45     ` Kyle Moffett
2005-05-29 13:29   ` Joe Seigh
2005-05-29 15:32     ` Kyle Moffett
2005-05-30 11:06   ` spinaphore conceptual draft Andi Kleen
2005-05-30 14:52     ` Chris Friesen
2005-05-30 16:40       ` Andi Kleen
2005-05-30 17:11         ` Chris Friesen
2005-05-30 17:46           ` Andi Kleen
2005-05-30 18:04             ` Kyle Moffett
2005-05-30 18:40               ` Vojtech Pavlik
2005-05-30 18:54                 ` Kyle Moffett
2005-05-30 19:24                 ` Andi Kleen
2005-05-30 19:28               ` Andi Kleen
2005-05-30 19:39                 ` Kyle Moffett
2005-05-31 22:25                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-05-28  1:05 ` spinaphore conceptual draft (was discussion of RT patch) john cooper
2005-05-28  2:02 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2005-05-28 13:59 ` Alan Cox

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=1117245765.6477.34.camel@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=davidnicol@gmail.com \
    --cc=john.cooper@timesys.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /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