Re: [patch 0/8] mutex subsystem, ANNOUNCE

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 18:56 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>It would be nice to first do a run with a fair implementation of 
> >>mutexes.
> > 
> > 
> > which fairness implementation do you mean - the one where all tasks will 
> > get the lock in fair FIFO order, and a 'lucky bastard' cannot steal the 
> > lock from waiters and thus put them at an indefinite disadvantage?
> > 
> 
> I guess so. I'm not so worried about the rare 'lucky bastard' ie. a
> lock request coming in concurrently, but rather the naturally favoured
> 'this CPU' taking the lock again after waking up the head waiter but
> before it gets a chance to run / transfer the cacheline.

that's just the most evil lucky bastard....


-
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/