From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v5][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:18:34 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901071516280.3057@localhost.localdomain>
References: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901061413310.3057@localhost.localdomain> <1231281801.11687.125.camel@twins> <1231283778.11687.136.camel@twins> <1231329783.11687.287.camel@twins> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901070816450.3057@localhost.localdomain> <1231347442.11687.344.camel@twins>
 <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901071016340.3057@localhost.localdomain> <alpine.DEB.1.10.0901071530490.23456@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901071241360.3057@localhost.localdomain> <20090107210923.GV2002@parisc-linux.org> <20090107213924.GP496@one.firstfloor.org>
 <49652C7C.3000909@novell.com> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901071510390.3057@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
	Peter Morreale <pmorreale@novell.com>,
	Sven Dietrich <SDietrich@novell.com>
To: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901071510390.3057@localhost.localdomain>
List-ID: <linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org>



On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > "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.

There's another issue: you also need to lock the thing that gives you the 
task pointer in the first place. So it's not sufficient to do 
get_task_struct(), you also need to do it within a context where you know 
that the pointer is not going away _while_ you do it.

And with the mutexes clearing the ->owner field without even holding the 
spinlock, that is not a guarantee we can easily get any way. Maybe we'd 
need to hold the tasklist_lock or something.

		Linus