Re: RFC: one-bit mutexes (was: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Memory managementlivelock)

From: Mikulas Patocka
Date: Mon Oct 20 2008 - 16:14:50 EST

> > If you are concerned about the size of an inode, I can convert other
> > mutexes to bit mutexes: i_mutex and inotify_mutex.
> I wouldn't worry for now. mutexes can be unlocked much faster than bit
> mutexes, especially in the fastpath. And due to slab, it would be
> unlikely to actually save any space.

Maybe inotify_mutex. You are right that i_mutex is so heavily contended
that slowing it down to save few words wouldn't be good. Do you know about
any inotify-intensive workload?

> > I could also create
> > bit_spinlock (one-bit spinlock that uses test_and_set_bit) and save space
> > for address_space->tree_lock, address_space->i_mmap_lock,
> > address_space->private_lock, inode->i_lock.
> We have that already. It is much much faster to unlock spinlocks than
> bit spinlocks in general (if you own the word exclusively, then it's
> not, but then you would be less likely to save space), and we can also
> do proper FIFO ticket locks with a larger word.

BTW. why do spinlocks on x86(64) have 32 bits and not 8 bits or 16 bits?
Are atomic 32-bit instuctions faster?

Can x86(86) system have 256 CPUs?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at