Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753350AbZAFNR3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 08:17:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751799AbZAFNRS (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 08:17:18 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:51582 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751768AbZAFNRR (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 08:17:17 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:16:43 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Gregory Haskins Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Matthew Wilcox , Andi Kleen , Chris Mason , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel , linux-btrfs , Thomas Gleixner , Steven Rostedt , Nick Piggin , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC]: mutex: adaptive spin Message-ID: <20090106131643.GA15228@elte.hu> References: <1230722935.4680.5.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <20081231104533.abfb1cf9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1230765549.7538.8.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <87r63ljzox.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20090103191706.GA2002@parisc-linux.org> <1231093310.27690.5.camel@twins> <20090104184103.GE2002@parisc-linux.org> <1231242031.11687.97.camel@twins> <20090106121052.GA27232@elte.hu> <4963584A.4090805@novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4963584A.4090805@novell.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1004 Lines: 24 * Gregory Haskins wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > There's no time or spin-rate based heuristics in this at all (i.e. these > > mutexes are not 'adaptive' at all!), > > FYI: The original "adaptive" name was chosen in the -rt implementation > to reflect that the locks can adaptively spin or sleep, depending on > conditions. I realize this is in contrast to the typical usage of the > term when it is in reference to the spin-time being based on some > empirical heuristics, etc as you mentioned. Sorry for the confusion. the current version of the -rt spinny-mutexes bits were mostly written by Steve, right? Historically it all started out with a more classic "adaptive mutexes" patchset so the name stuck i guess. 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/