> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:32:44 +0100 Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not as concerned about the contended performance of spinlocks >
The contended case matters. Back in 2.5.something I screwed up the debug version of one of the locks (rwlock, iirc) - it was simply missing a cpu_relax(), and some people's benchmarks halved. > This was just something I had in mind when the hardware lock > starvation issue came up It looks like a good way to address the lru_lock starvation/capture problem. But I think I'd be more comfortable if we were to introduce it as a new lock type, rather than as a reimplementation of the existing spin_lock(). Initially, at least. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
