lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 0/6] lightweight robust futexes: -V3 - Why in userspace?
Esben Nielsen wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 20:06 +0100, Esben Nielsen wrote:

>>>Why does the list have to be in userspace?
>>
>>because it's faster ;)

> Faster???
> As I see it, extra manipulations have to be done even in the non-congested
> case: Every time the lock is taken the locking thread has to add the lock
> to a the list, and reversely remove the lock from the list. I.e.
> instructions are _added_ to the fast path where you stay purely in
> userspace.
>
> I am ofcourse comparing to a solution where you do a syscall on everytime
> you do a lock.


The whole *point* of futexes is that on uncontested operations you don't
have to do a syscall. Thus, if you can avoid taking a syscall while
still getting reliability, you'll be faster.

Dropping to kernelspace isn't free.

Chris

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-02-16 21:26    [W:0.051 / U:0.964 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site