On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On the other hand, both MCS and the fast queue locks > implemented by Michel showed low variability and high > performance. On microbenchmarks, and when implemented for only one single subsystem, yes. > The numbers for Michel's MCS and fast queue lock > implementations appear to be both fast and stable. I do think that doing specialized spinlocks for special areas may be a rasonable approach, and it's quite possible that the SySV IPC thing is one such area. But no, I don't think the numbers I've seen for Michel's MCS are AT ALL comparable to the generic spinlocks, and the interface makes them incompatible as a replacement to even test in general. Don't get me wrong: I think the targeted approach is *better*. I just also happen to think that you spout big words about things that aren't all that big, and try to make this a bigger deal than it is. The benchmark numbers you point to are micro-benchmarks, and not all comparable. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html