Re: [rfc][patch] queued spinlocks (i386)

[Nikita Danilov]

Ingo Molnar writes:
 > 
 > * Nikita Danilov <nikita@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
 > 
 > > Indeed, this technique is very well known. E.g., 
 > > http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/anderson01sharedmemory.html has a whole 
 > > section (3. Local-spin Algorithms) on them, citing papers from the 
 > > 1990 onward.
 > 
 > that is a cool reference! So i'd suggest to do (redo?) the patch based 
 > on those concepts and that terminology and not use 'queued spinlocks' 

There is some old version:

http://namesys.com/pub/misc-patches/unsupported/extra/2004.02.04/p06-locallock.patch
http://namesys.com/pub/misc-patches/unsupported/extra/2004.02.04/p07-locallock-bkl.patch
http://namesys.com/pub/misc-patches/unsupported/extra/2004.02.04/p08-locallock-zone.patch

http://namesys.com/pub/misc-patches/unsupported/extra/2004.02.04/p0b-atomic_dec_and_locallock.patch
http://namesys.com/pub/misc-patches/unsupported/extra/2004.02.04/p0c-locallock-dcache.patch

This version retains original spin-lock interface (i.e., no additional
"queue link" pointer is passed to the locking function). As a result,
lock data structure contains an array of NR_CPU counters, so it's only
suitable for global statically allocated locks.

 > that are commonly associated with MS's stuff. And as a result the 
 > contended case would be optimized some more via local-spin algorithms. 
 > (which is not a key thing for us, but which would be nice to have 
 > nevertheless)
 > 
 > 	Ingo

Nikita.

-
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/