* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > And v8 is rock solid in all my testing - and i'll give v10 a similar
> > workout as well.
>
> The differences between v8 and v10 are very fundamental, since v8 does
> the spinning inside the spinlock'ed loop (the spinning itself is not
> inside the spinlock, but all the "real action" is). So v8 not showing
> problems doesn't really say much about v10 - totally different
> algorithms that share only some of the support code.
>
> So even if many lines look the same, those code-lines aren't the really
> interesting ones. The only really interesting once is really the
> atomic_cmpxchg (outside spinlock) vs atomic_xchg (inside spinlock), and
> those are almost diametrically opposite.
yeah. What i thought they would be useful for are testing and experiments
like this:
" what if you switch the spinning to more fair by typing this in your
current tree:
git revert c10b491
"
... but that's a pretty narrow purpose.
> > Would you prefer a single commit or is this kind of delta development
> > history useful, with all the variants (at least the later, more
> > promising ones) included?
>
> I'm not sure it makes sense to show the history here, especially as
> there really were two different approaches, and while they share many
> issues, they sure aren't equivalent nor are we really talking about any
> evolution of the patch except in the sense of one being the kick-starter
> for the alternative approach.
>
> What _can_ make sense is to commit some of the infrastructure helper
> code separately, ie the lock ownership and preemption changes, since
> those really are independent of the spinning code, and at least the
> preemption thing is interesting and relevant even without it.
ok, we'll improve the splitup.
Ingo
--
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
