From: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>
To: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
Cc: Martin Wirth <Martin.Wirth@dlr.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, nigel@nrg.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] New locking primitive for 2.5
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 11:25:14 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3C62D49A.4CBB6295@zip.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3C629F91.2869CB1F@dlr.de>, <3C629F91.2869CB1F@dlr.de> <1013107259.10430.29.camel@phantasy>
Robert Love wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 10:38, Martin Wirth wrote:
> > This is a request for comment on a new locking primitive
> > called a combilock.
>
> Interesting ...
>
> The question I raise is, how many locks do we have where we have a
> single resource we lock where in some codepaths the lock is used for
> short duration and in other places the lock is long-duration?
Quite a few. Significant ones. pagemap_lru_lock and lru_list_lock
come to mind.
> It would be useful to identify a few locks where this would benefit and
> apply the appropriate combi variant and do some benchmarking.
>
> Some of the talk I've heard has been toward an adaptive lock. These are
> locks like Solaris's that can spin or sleep, usually depending on the
> state of the lock's holder. Another alternative, which I prefer since
> it is much less overhead, is a lock that spins-then-sleeps
> unconditionally.
I dunno. The spin-a-bit-then-sleep lock has always struck me as
i_dont_know_what_the_fuck_im_doing_lock(). Martin's approach puts
the decision in the hands of the programmer, rather than saying
"Oh gee I goofed" at runtime.
I need to think about all of this some more...
> ...
>
> > To really take any benefit from a preemptible kernel a lot of spin locks
> > will have to be replaced by mutex locks. The combi-lock approach may
> > convince more people who typically fear the higher scheduling pressure
> > of sleeping locks to do so, if they can decide on each instance which
> > approach (spin of sleep) will be taken.
>
> We shouldn't engage in wholesale changing of spinlocks to semaphores
> without a priority-inheritance mechanism. And _that_ is the bigger
> issue ...
hmmm.
Let's back off a bit. What are we trying to achieve here? What
problem are we trying to solve? Is it to allow preemptability
inside the infamous long-held locks? If so then I'd favour
a piecemeal approach to handling each one, rather than magic
bullets. Now it may be that certain of the locks are best handled
via a new primitive, but that's not obviously true at this time, to me.
-
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-02-07 19:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-02-07 15:38 [RFC] New locking primitive for 2.5 Martin Wirth
2002-02-07 18:04 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-02-07 18:06 ` Richard Gooch
2002-02-07 18:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-02-07 19:33 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-02-07 19:55 ` Mark Frazer
2002-02-08 12:24 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-02-07 18:40 ` Robert Love
2002-02-07 19:25 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2002-02-07 19:51 ` Dave Hansen
2002-02-07 20:06 ` Andrew Morton
2002-02-07 20:11 ` Robert Love
2002-02-07 21:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-02-07 19:59 ` Andrew Morton
2002-02-08 8:20 ` Nigel Gamble
2002-02-08 17:06 ` Larry McVoy
2002-02-07 19:58 ` yodaiken
2002-02-07 20:08 ` Robert Love
2002-02-07 20:15 ` yodaiken
2002-02-07 20:20 ` Robert Love
2002-02-07 20:36 ` yodaiken
2002-02-07 20:57 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-02-07 21:00 ` yodaiken
2002-02-07 21:10 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-02-07 20:49 ` Martin Wirth
2002-02-08 8:34 ` Martin Wirth
2002-02-08 18:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-02-08 18:12 ` Martin Wirth
2002-02-08 18:33 ` Alexander Viro
2002-02-08 20:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-02-08 18:54 ` Andrew Morton
2002-02-08 19:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-02-08 19:21 ` Alexander Viro
2002-02-08 19:36 ` Robert Love
2002-02-09 0:18 ` Alexander Viro
2002-02-08 21:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-02-08 21:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-02-08 20:04 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-02-08 21:16 ` Mike Fedyk
2002-02-09 0:09 ` Alan Cox
2002-02-09 0:05 ` Mike Fedyk
2002-02-08 21:40 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2002-02-09 19:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-02-07 19:56 ` yodaiken
2002-02-07 22:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-02-07 20:31 ` yodaiken
2002-02-07 20:57 ` Andrew Morton
2002-02-07 21:02 ` yodaiken
2002-02-08 12:31 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-02-08 16:51 ` Nigel Gamble
2002-02-08 18:41 ` Andrew Morton
2002-02-08 20:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-02-08 18:56 ` Alexander Viro
2002-02-08 20:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-02-08 19:10 ` Alexander Viro
2002-02-08 20:14 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-02-08 20:38 ` yodaiken
2002-02-08 21:55 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-02-08 12:47 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-02-08 15:13 ` yodaiken
2002-02-08 19:22 ` Horst von Brand
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=3C62D49A.4CBB6295@zip.com.au \
--to=akpm@zip.com.au \
--cc=Martin.Wirth@dlr.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nigel@nrg.org \
--cc=rml@tech9.net \
/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