Re: [PATCH 2/2] mutex: Apply adaptive spinning on mutex_trylock()

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 16:50 +0300, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/