From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965150AbWFTIni (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jun 2006 04:43:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965181AbWFTIni (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jun 2006 04:43:38 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:61381 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965150AbWFTInh (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jun 2006 04:43:37 -0400 Subject: Re: [patch] increase spinlock-debug looping timeouts (write_lock and NMI) From: Arjan van de Ven To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andrew Morton , Dave Olson , mingo@elte.hu, ccb@acm.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <4497A5BC.4070005@yahoo.com.au> References: <20060619233947.94f7e644.akpm@osdl.org> <4497A5BC.4070005@yahoo.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:43:12 +0200 Message-Id: <1150792992.2891.168.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 17:37 +1000, > > Otherwise, a straight rwlock->spinlock conversion will have a few more > scalability issues, but I'd guess it wouldn't be a problem at all for > most workloads on most systems. I'm curious what scalability advantage you see for rw spinlocks vs real spinlocks ... since for any kind of moderate hold time the opposite is expected ;)