On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 15:06, Andrew Morton wrote:
> A dynamic lock which says "we've spun for too long, let's sleep"
> seems to be a tradeoff between programmer effort and efficiency,
> and a bad one at that.
I'm not so sure. What if we can't _know_ how long the lock will be held
because we don't know the status of the holder? What if _he_ is
sleeping on some other lock or their are a lot of contending processes?
Certainly I agree, we need to put forth effort into designing things
right and with a minimal amount of lock held time.
> Possibly the locks could become more adaptive, and could, at
> each call site, "learn" the expected spintime. But it all seems
> too baroque to me.
Agreed, this is much too much ;-)
Robert Love
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 21:01:06 EST