On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 15:58 -0800, Michel Lespinasse wrote: > No, I think that's doable. The trick would be that once a thread > acquires the lock, the only remaining use of the node is to receive > the 'next' pointer if/when another thread starts contending for the > lock. So if the lock state would need to distinguish between a lock > that is currently locked but not contended (the next value would then > be NULL), and a lock that is currently locked and contended (the > lock->next value is the node that goes after the current lock owner) >
It adds yet another memory write to store the node pointer in the lock... I suspect it's going to increase false sharing. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/