Re: 2.6.11-rc1-mm1

[Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>]

Robert Wisniewski <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> modify_val_spin()
>  {
>  	acquire_spin_lock()
>  	// calculate some_value based on global_val
>  	// for example c=global_val; if (c%0) some_value=10; else some_value=20;
>  	global_val = global_val + some_value
>  	release_spin_lock()
>  }
> 
>  modify_val_atomic()
>  {
>  	do
>  	// calculate some_value based on global_val
>  	// for example c=global_val; if (c%0) some_value=10; else some_value=20;
>  	global_val = global_val + some_value
>  	while (compare_and_store(global_val, , ))
>  }
> 
>  What's the difference.  The deal is if two processes execute this code
>  simultaneously and one gets interrupted in the middle of modify_val_spin,
>  then the other wastes its entire quantum spinning for the lock.  In the
>  modify_val_atomic if one process gets interrupted, no problem, the other
>  process can proceed through, then when the first one runs again the CAS
>  will fail, and it will go around the loop again.

One could use spin_lock_irq().  The performance would be similar.

> Now imagine it was the kernel involved...

Or are you saying that userspace does the above as well?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/