Re: [PATCH -v8][RFC] mutex: implement adaptive spinning

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 08:20 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > You made it back into the locked version.
> 
> Btw, even if you probably had some reason for this, one thing to note is 
> that I think Chris' performance testing showed that the version using a 
> lock was inferior to his local btrfs hack, while the unlocked version 
> actually beat his hack.
> 
> Maybe I misunderstood his numbers, though. But if I followed that sub-part 
> of the test right, it really means that the locked version is pointless - 
> it will never be able to replace peoples local hacks for this same thing, 
> because it just doesn't give the performance people are looking for.
> 
> Since the whole (and _only_) point of this thing is to perform well, 
> that's a big deal.

Like said in reply to Chris' email, I just wanted to see if fairness was
worth the effort, because the pure unlocked spin showed significant
unfairness (and I know some people really care about some level of
fairness).

Initial testing with the simple test-mutex thing didn't show too bad
numbers.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/