Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
It would be nice to first do a run with a fair implementation of
mutexes.
which fairness implementation do you mean - the one where all tasks will
get the lock in fair FIFO order, and a 'lucky bastard' cannot steal the
lock from waiters and thus put them at an indefinite disadvantage?
I guess so. I'm not so worried about the rare 'lucky bastard' ie. a
lock request coming in concurrently, but rather the naturally favoured
'this CPU' taking the lock again after waking up the head waiter but
before it gets a chance to run / transfer the cacheline.
At the very least, the head waiter should not put itself on the end of
the FIFO when it finds the lock contended and waits again.
But yes, also interesting would be performance of the _completely_ FIFO
implementation.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
