Re: [patch] adaptive semaphores: better performance for "short semaphores" or "long spinlocks"

From: Davide Libenzi (davidel@maticad.it)
Date: Mon Feb 28 2000 - 02:57:44 EST


Monday, February 28, 2000 1:01 AM
Jamie Lokier <lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk> wrote :
> Perhaps it would be better for a "short spin" to actually perform all
> the calculations of a schedule (goodness loop etc.), while checking to
> see if it should abort.
>
> That way the overhead of a real schedule() would be avoided when the
> contention isn't that long, and when there is a schedule, most of the
> hard work has been done already.

I've about 2 years of agreement here ;)

Davide.

--
Feel free, feel Debian !

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 29 2000 - 21:00:19 EST