adaptive mutexes, was Re: btrfs_tree_lock & trylock
- From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 13:16:48 -0400
On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 08:07:51AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
The problem is that they are a nuisance. It is impossible to choose
the right trade off between spin an no-spin, also they optimize for
a case that doesn't occur often enough to be justified.
People seem to repeatedly come up with adaptive mutex based on intuitive
hunch, and never do much analysis before or afterwards.
You need some facts to come up with a useful model:
% of time lock is contended
average lock hold time
overhead of entry-exit for lock primitive (spin time)
overhead of the adaptive version either pure spin or pure mutex
Also, adaptive locks have even worse unfairness than spin locks under
contention.
Well, the traditional wisdom in kernel land is that you want a spinlock
if the contention phases are short. But we grow more an more places
where we might do sleep under the lock. One optimization would be
to spin, but only if the mutex holder is not sleeping. Or we make the
spinning a completely different API, mutex_lock_adaptive()
--
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/
- Prev by Date: Re: [BUG] x86 kenel won't boot under Virtual PC
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86: check for and defend against BIOS memory corruption
- Previous by thread: [PATCH] kernel/cpu.c: create a CPU_STARTING cpu_chain notifier
- Next by thread: [PATCH bz #11425] tpm: release memory on init failure
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
