Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753448Ab1CYOFX (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:05:23 -0400
Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:45036 "EHLO
	hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753131Ab1CYOFU (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:05:20 -0400
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=ZtuXOl23UuD1yoJUTgnZ6i6Z5VPlPhPMWCeUNtN8OGA= c=1 sm=0 a=a_0UJ9UWJWAA:10 a=Q9fys5e9bTEA:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:17 a=meVymXHHAAAA:8 a=GqjhHkFXCDvBapARVnEA:9 a=TDII8LR6bupxLZ2vnvNIbg-GKI0A:4 a=PUjeQqilurYA:10 a=jeBq3FmKZ4MA:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:117
X-Cloudmark-Score: 0
X-Originating-IP: 67.242.120.143
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mutex: Apply adaptive spinning on mutex_trylock()
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Andrey Kuzmin <andrey.v.kuzmin@gmail.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=BaRFeAL1mS1Rjq_QGgcMb1rOKkvf=ig+23jvP@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110323153727.GB12003@htj.dyndns.org>
	 <20110324094119.GD12038@htj.dyndns.org>
	 <20110324094151.GE12038@htj.dyndns.org>
	 <20110325033956.GB9313@home.goodmis.org>
	 <AANLkTimO3b3D+SofYFLyh8Txk+e4Ke4ToKrBiatdFghr@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1301058727.14261.174.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
	 <AANLkTi=BaRFeAL1mS1Rjq_QGgcMb1rOKkvf=ig+23jvP@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:05:18 -0400
Message-ID: <1301061918.14261.188.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1254
Lines: 29

On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 16:50 +0300, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 14:13 +0300, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
> >> Turning try_lock into indefinitely spinning one breaks its semantics,
> >> so deadlock is to be expected. But what's wrong in this scenario if
> >> try_lock spins a bit before giving up?
> >
> > Because that will cause this scenario to spin that "little longer"
> > always, and introduce latencies that did not exist before. Either the
> > solution does not break this scenario, or it should not go in.
> 
> Broken semantics and extra latency are two separate issues. If the
> former is fixed, the latter is easily handled by introducing new
> mutex_trylock_spin call that lets one either stick to existing
> behavior (try/fail) or choose a new one where latency penalty is
> justified by locking patterns.
> 

For those wanting a more RT deterministic OS, I will argue against
latency penalties.

-- Steve


--
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/