lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jun]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC ticketlock] Auto-queued ticketlock
From
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
> OK, I haven't found a issue here yet, but youss are beiing trickssy! We
> don't like trickssy, and we must find precccciouss!!!

.. and I personally have my usual reservations. I absolutely hate
papering over scalability issues, and historically whenever people
have ever thought that we want complex spinlocks, the problem has
always been that the locking sucks.

So reinforced by previous events, I really feel that code that needs
this kind of spinlock is broken and needs to be fixed, rather than
actually introduce tricky spinlocks.

So in order to merge something like this, I want (a) numbers for real
loads and (b) explanations for why the spinlock users cannot be fixed.

Because "we might hit loads" is just not good enough. I would counter
with "hiding problems causes more of them".

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-06-11 03:01    [W:0.361 / U:0.884 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site