Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 03:54:43 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org, arjanv@infradead.org,
       nico@cam.org, jes@trained-monkey.org, zwane@arm.linux.org.uk,
       oleg@tv-sign.ru, dhowells@redhat.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk,
       bcrl@kvack.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, hch@infradead.org, ak@suse.de,
       rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
Message-Id: <20051222035443.19a4b24e.akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <20051222114147.GA18878@elte.hu>
References: <20051222114147.GA18878@elte.hu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 858
Lines: 19

Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> this is the -V4 of the mutex subsystem patch-queue.
>

I've only been following this with half an eye, with the apparently
erroneous expectation that future versions of the patchset would come with
some explanation of why on earth we'd want to merge all this stuff into the
kernel.

We've seen some benchmarks which indicate that there are performance gains
to be had if there's a lot of lock contention, but isn't it the case that
this is because of the semi-extra wake_up() in down()?  Has anyone tried to
redo existing semaphores so they no longer have that disadvantage?
-
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/