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

From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Wed Jan 07 2009 - 18:18:45 EST




On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>
> Can I ask a simple question in light of all this discussion?
>
> "Is get_task_struct() really that bad?"

Yes. It's an atomic access (two, in fact, since you need to release it
too), which is a huge deal if we're talking about a timing-critical
section of code.

And this is timing-critical, or we wouldn't even care - even in the
contention case. Admittedly btrfs apparently makes it more so that it
_should_ be, but Peter had some timings that happened with just regular
create/unlink that showed a big difference.

So the whole and only point of spinning mutexes is to get rid of the
scheduler overhead, but to also not replace it with some other thing ;)

Linus
--
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/