Re: [tip:core/locking] x86/smp: Move waiting on contended ticketlock out of line
From: Rik van Riel
Date: Wed Feb 27 2013 - 21:54:12 EST
On 02/27/2013 05:13 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Feb 27, 2013 1:56 PM, "Rik van Riel" <riel@xxxxxxxxxx
No argument there, but that does in no way negate the need for some
The very numbers you posted showed that the backoff was *not* more
robust. Quite the reverse, there was arguably more variability.
On the other hand, both MCS and the fast queue locks
implemented by Michel showed low variability and high
So I really don't like how you make these sweeping statements
*again*. Numbers talk, bullshit walks.
If you read all the text in my last mail, you will see the
link to Michel's performance results. The numbers speak for
The fact is, life is complicated. The simple spinlocks tend to work
really well. People have tried fancy things before, and it turns out
it's not as simple as they think.
The numbers for both the simple spinlocks and the
spinlock backoff kind of suck. Both of these have
high variability, and both eventually fall down
under heavy load.
The numbers for Michel's MCS and fast queue lock
implementations appear to be both fast and stable.
I agree that we need numbers.
I do not agree that other locks should be dismissed
out of hand without looking at the 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/