On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 09:06:51PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
quoted text
> On Thursday 24 July 2008 20:55, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Jul 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > Hey, something kind of cool (and OT) I've just thought of that we can
> > > do with ticket locks is to take tickets for 2 (or 64K) nested locks,
> > > and then wait for them both (all), so the cost is N*lock + longest spin,
> > > rather than N*lock + N*avg spin.
> >
> > Isn't this deadlocky?
> >
> > E.g. one task takes ticket x=1, then other task comes in and takes x=2
> > and y=1, then first task takes y=2.  Then neither can actually
> > complete both locks.
> 
> Oh duh of course you still need mutual exclusion from the first lock
> to order the subsequent :P
> 
> So yeah it only works for N > 2 locks, and you have to spin_lock the
> first one... so unsuitable for scheduler.

Or sort the locks by address or some such.

							Thanx, Paul
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/