Re: [PATCH -v5][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Gregory Haskins wrote:

> Hi Ingo,
> 
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >   
> >> Can I ask a simple question in light of all this discussion?
> >>
> >> "Is get_task_struct() really that bad?"
> >>     
> >
> > it dirties a cacheline and it also involves atomics.
> >   
> Yes, understood.  But we should note we are always going to be talking
> about thrashing caches here since we are ultimately having one CPU
> observe another.  There's no way to get around that.  I understand that
> there are various degrees of this occurring, and I have no doubt that
> the proposed improvements strive to achieve a reduction of that.  My
> question is really targeted at "at what cost".
> 
> Don't get me wrong.  I am not advocating going back to get/put-task per
> se.  I am simply asking the question of whether we have taken the design
> off into the weeds having lost sight of the actual requirements and/or
> results.  Its starting to smell like we have.  This is just a friendly
> reality check.  Feel free to disregard. ;)

What would be interesting is various benchmarks against all three.

1) no mutex spinning.
2) get_task_struct() implementation.
3) spin_or_sched implementation.

I believe that 2 happens to be the easiest to understand. No need to know 
about the behavior of freed objects. If we see no or negligible 
improvement between 2 and 3 on any benchmark, then I say we stick with 2.

-- Steve

--
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/