From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: inaky.perez-gonzalez@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
robustmutexes@lists.osdl.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au,
mingo@elte.hu, jamie@shareable.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] FUSYN Realtime & robust mutexes for Linux, v2.3.1
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 00:40:23 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040805004023.65463e88.akpm@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4111E3B5.1070608@redhat.com>
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > How large is the slowdown, and on what workloads?
>
> The fast path for all locking primitives etc in nptl today is entirely
> at userlevel. Normally just a single atomic operation with a dozen
> other instructions. With the fusyn stuff each and every locking
> operation needs a system call to register/unregister the thread as it
> locks/unlocks mutex/rwlocks/etc. Go figure how well this works. We are
> talking about making the fast path of the locking primitives
> two/three/four orders of magnitude more expensive. And this for
> absolutely no benefit for 99.999% of all the code which uses threads.
>
ouch, OK. But doesn't the current futex code continue to work unchanged?
> > Passing the lock to a non-rt task when there's an rt-task waiting for it
> > seems pretty poor form, too.
>
> No no, that's not what is wanted. Robust mutexes are a special kind of
> mutex and not related to rt issues.
I was referring to "scheduling-policy based unlock/wakeup", actually.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-08-05 7:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-08-04 9:13 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2004-08-05 6:21 ` Andrew Morton
2004-08-05 7:06 ` Ulrich Drepper
2004-08-05 7:17 ` Andrew Morton
2004-08-05 7:37 ` Ulrich Drepper
2004-08-05 7:40 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2004-08-05 8:22 ` Ulrich Drepper
2004-08-05 10:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-08-05 11:48 ` Rusty Russell
2004-08-05 13:23 ` Linh Dang
2004-08-05 13:26 ` Linh Dang
2004-08-05 14:02 ` Chris Friesen
2004-08-05 10:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-08-05 10:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-08-05 8:39 Eric Valette
2004-08-05 18:16 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2004-08-05 18:16 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2004-08-05 18:16 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2004-08-05 18:22 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2004-08-05 18:37 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2004-08-05 18:39 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2004-08-05 18:39 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040805004023.65463e88.akpm@osdl.org \
--to=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=drepper@redhat.com \
--cc=inaky.perez-gonzalez@intel.com \
--cc=jamie@shareable.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=robustmutexes@lists.osdl.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome