From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC]: mutex: adaptive spin Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:31:50 -0800 Message-ID: <20090106223150.GF6741@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1231093310.27690.5.camel@twins> <20090104184103.GE2002@parisc-linux.org> <1231242031.11687.97.camel@twins> <20090106121052.GA27232@elte.hu> <4963584A.4090805@novell.com> <20090106131643.GA15228@elte.hu> <1231248041.11687.107.camel@twins> <49636799.1010109@novell.com> <20090106214229.GD6741@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1231278275.11687.111.camel@twins> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Gregory Haskins , Ingo Molnar , Matthew Wilcox , Andi Kleen , Chris Mason , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel , linux-btrfs , Thomas Gleixner , Steven Rostedt , Nick Piggin , Linus Torvalds , Peter Morreale , Sven Dietrich To: Peter Zijlstra Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1231278275.11687.111.camel@twins> List-ID: On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:44:35PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 13:42 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Preemptable RCU needs to be faster. Got it -- and might have a way > > to do it by eliminating the irq disabling and cutting way back on the > > number of operations that must be performed. It would probably still > > be necessary to access the task structure. > > > > Or is something other than the raw performance of rcu_read_lock() and > > rcu_read_unlock() at issue here? > > With Linus' mutex_spin_or_schedule() function the whole - keeping > owner's task_struct alive issue goes away,.. now if only the thing would > boot... Cool! And I can relate to the "if only the thing would boot" part. ;-) Thanx, Paul