On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 19:33 +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > Which brings me back to my initial reaction to this work. Do we need > two flavors of Mutex? some program sections need Fairness, some need > performance. Some need low-latency, some need absolute raw CPU power. Thing is, its the kernel, we cannot have such knobs per task. So we have to pick one and stick with it -- the 'best' we can do is what PREEMPT_RT does and replace the thing whole sale at build time. > Because at the end of the day spinning in a saturated CPU work-load > that does not care about latency, eats away cycles that could be spent > on computation. Think multi-threaded video processing for example. > Thing I would like to measure is > 1 - how many times we spin and at the end get a lock > 2 - how many times we spin and at the end sleep. > 3 - how many times we sleep like before. > vs. In old case CPU spent on scheduling. Just to see if we are actually loosing > cycles at the end. Feel free to do so ;-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
