On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 18:56 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 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.
that's just the most evil lucky bastard....
-
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]
