From: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
To: Patrick Oppenlander <patrick.oppenlander@gmail.com>
Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Some questions
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:35:55 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180430153555.GM1392@brightrain.aerifal.cx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEg67GkYqBsFYLm0dUM27BbkSuyADifYAiTU463MunBA+=QB9g@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 01:55:16PM +1000, Patrick Oppenlander wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 1:16 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 12:52:06PM +1000, Patrick Oppenlander wrote:
> >> - Is there a way that spinlocks could be disabled or bypassed on
> >> uniprocessor systems?
> >
> > Whether locks are needed is a matter of whether there are multiple
> > threads, not whether it's uniprocessor or multiprocessor. For some
> > things where it's likely to matter (stdio, malloc, some other
> > internals), locks are already optimized out when there is only one
> > thread. In other cases it was deemed either too costly/difficult or
> > irrelevant to overall performance.
>
> I was talking about the case of a uniprocessor system running a multi
> theaded process.
>
> In that case the "spin" part of spinlock just burns time & electrons.
> The "lock" part obviously can't be omitted. Calling straight through
> to the kernel is the most efficient thing to do.
I see. Is this an issue you've actually hit? I don't see any obvious
way to make this decision at runtime that doesn't incur unwanted costs
or failure modes, and I suspect we're spinning way too many times
anyway even for SMP (i.e. the ideal solution might just be
significantly reducing the # of spins).
Rich
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-30 15:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-30 2:52 Patrick Oppenlander
2018-04-30 3:16 ` Rich Felker
2018-04-30 3:55 ` Patrick Oppenlander
2018-04-30 15:35 ` Rich Felker [this message]
2018-05-01 2:35 ` Patrick Oppenlander
2018-05-01 21:03 ` Rich Felker
2018-05-01 22:14 ` Patrick Oppenlander
2018-04-30 5:17 ` Patrick Oppenlander
2018-04-30 15:29 ` Rich Felker
2018-05-01 2:32 ` Patrick Oppenlander
2018-04-30 5:29 ` Patrick Oppenlander
2018-04-30 15:31 ` Rich Felker
2018-05-01 2:34 ` Patrick Oppenlander
2018-05-01 15:52 ` Rich Felker
2018-05-01 17:35 ` Rich Felker
2018-05-01 21:49 ` Andre McCurdy
2018-05-01 22:14 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2018-05-02 13:42 ` Rich Felker
2018-05-01 0:10 ` Patrick Oppenlander
2018-05-01 14:19 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2018-05-01 21:05 ` Rich Felker
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180430153555.GM1392@brightrain.aerifal.cx \
--to=dalias@libc.org \
--cc=musl@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=patrick.oppenlander@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/musl/
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).