Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:14:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:13:47 -0500 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:65410 "HELO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:13:32 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 23:09:16 +0100 (CET) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: To: yodaiken Cc: Martin Wirth , linux-kernel , akpm , torvalds , rml , nigel Subject: Re: [RFC] New locking primitive for 2.5 In-Reply-To: <20020207125601.A21354@hq.fsmlabs.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, yodaiken wrote: > So what's the difference between combi_spin and combi_mutex? > combi_spin becomes > if not mutex locked, spin > else sleep > Bizzare no, the real optimization is that when spin meets spin, they will not mutex. If a mutex-user has it then spins turn into mutex, but that (is supposed to) happen rarely. i think one example *could* be to turn inode->i_sem into a combi-lock. Eg. generic_file_llseek() could use the spin variant. this is a real performance problem, i've seen scheduling storms in dbench-type runs due to llseek taking the inode semaphore. whether combi-locks truly bring performance benefits remains to be seen, but the patch definitely needs to provide some working example and some hard numbers for some real workload. Ingo - 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/