Message-ID: <1365093662.2609.111.camel@laptop>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mutex: add support for reservation style locks,
 v2
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com>,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, robclark@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        mingo@elte.hu, linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:41:02 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20130404133123.GW2228@phenom.ffwll.local>
References: <20130228102452.15191.22673.stgit@patser>
	 <20130228102502.15191.14146.stgit@patser>
	 <1364900432.18374.24.camel@laptop> <515AF1C1.7080508@canonical.com>
	 <1364921954.20640.22.camel@laptop> <1365076908.2609.94.camel@laptop>
	 <20130404133123.GW2228@phenom.ffwll.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 831
Lines: 20

On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 15:31 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> The thing is now that you're not expected to hold these locks for a
> long
> time - if you need to synchronously stall while holding a lock
> performance
> will go down the gutters anyway. And since most current
> gpus/co-processors
> still can't really preempt fairness isn't that high a priority,
> either.
> So we didn't think too much about that.

Yeah but you're proposing a new synchronization primitive for the core
kernel.. all such 'fun' details need to be considered, not only those
few that bear on the one usecase.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/