Re: [PATCH RFC ticketlock] Auto-queued ticketlock

From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Mon Jun 10 2013 - 20:51:23 EST

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> OK, I haven't found a issue here yet, but youss are beiing trickssy! We
> don't like trickssy, and we must find precccciouss!!!

.. and I personally have my usual reservations. I absolutely hate
papering over scalability issues, and historically whenever people
have ever thought that we want complex spinlocks, the problem has
always been that the locking sucks.

So reinforced by previous events, I really feel that code that needs
this kind of spinlock is broken and needs to be fixed, rather than
actually introduce tricky spinlocks.

So in order to merge something like this, I want (a) numbers for real
loads and (b) explanations for why the spinlock users cannot be fixed.

Because "we might hit loads" is just not good enough. I would counter
with "hiding problems causes more of them".

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