Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965120AbVLVIAk (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Dec 2005 03:00:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965123AbVLVIAk (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Dec 2005 03:00:40 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:7815 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965120AbVLVIAj (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Dec 2005 03:00:39 -0500 Subject: Re: [patch 0/8] mutex subsystem, ANNOUNCE From: Arjan van de Ven To: Nick Piggin Cc: Ingo Molnar , Jes Sorensen , Linus Torvalds , lkml , Andrew Morton , Arjan van de Ven , Zwane Mwaikambo , Oleg Nesterov , David Howells , Alan Cox , Benjamin LaHaise , Steven Rostedt , Christoph Hellwig , Andi Kleen , Russell King , Nicolas Pitre In-Reply-To: <43AA5C15.8060907@yahoo.com.au> References: <20051221155411.GA7243@elte.hu> <43AA1134.7090704@yahoo.com.au> <20051222071940.GA16804@elte.hu> <43AA5C15.8060907@yahoo.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:00:23 +0100 Message-Id: <1135238423.2940.1.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.0.4 on pentafluge.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (-2.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -2.8 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1027 Lines: 27 On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 18:56 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Nick Piggin 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 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/