| Date | Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:51:14 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC ticketlock] Auto-queued ticketlock | From | Linus Torvalds <> |
| |
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
|