Re: [PATCH] Futex Asynchronous Interface

From: Oliver Xymoron (oxymoron@waste.org)
Date: Wed Jun 12 2002 - 15:05:47 EST


On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Any amount of tracking would be _extremely_ expensive. Right now getting
> an uncontended lock is about 15 CPU cycles in user space.
>
> Tryin to tell the kernel about gettign that lock takes about 1us on a P4
> (system call overhead), ie we're talking 18000 cycles. 18 THOUSAND cycles
> minimum. Compared to the current 15 cycles. That's more than three orders
> of magnitude slower than the current code, and you just lost the whole
> point of doing this all in user space in the first place.

That doesn't rule out approaches like storing a cookie alongside the lock
once it's acquired (or in a parallel space). Which can easily be done with
a wrapper around lock acquisition. And stale lock detection needn't be
done in kernel space either.

-- 
 "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."

- 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 : Sat Jun 15 2002 - 22:00:26 EST