Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756343AbZAMSNa (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:13:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753129AbZAMSNS (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:13:18 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:53731 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752185AbZAMSNQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:13:16 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:12:22 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Peter Zijlstra , "Paul E. McKenney" , Gregory Haskins , Matthew Wilcox , Andi Kleen , Chris Mason , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , linux-btrfs , Thomas Gleixner , Nick Piggin , Peter Morreale , Sven Dietrich , Dmitry Adamushko Subject: Re: [PATCH -v9][RFC] mutex: implement adaptive spinning Message-ID: <20090113181222.GA24910@elte.hu> References: <1231774622.4371.96.camel@laptop> <1231859742.442.128.camel@twins> <1231863710.7141.3.camel@twins> <1231864854.7141.8.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 0.0001] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1532 Lines: 43 * Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > Ok, tested only 1, but that was the one I remember lockups from -- and > > that seems to be good with the cmpxchg. > > > > Do you fancy me sending v10 or will you make that change locally? > > I'd like to get this in, but I'm not going to apply it in any case > without way more testing. > > It missed the merge window, but I'm potentially willing to let it slip > in - but only if there are a fair number of people willing to do numbers > and some harsh testing. Preferably people who did see problems earlier, > ie at a minimum Chris and Ingo under the loads they used before and saw > issues with. I am tracking Peter's code in tip/core/locking: c10b491: mutex: implement adaptive spinning, v8 c356a7c: mutex: implement adaptive spinning, v7 b89e5d8: mutex: implement adaptive spinning, v6 237ac94: mutex: implement adaptive spinning And v8 is rock solid in all my testing - and i'll give v10 a similar workout as well. Would you prefer a single commit or is this kind of delta development history useful, with all the variants (at least the later, more promising ones) included? The commits are in a tight group with no merges inbetween. 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/