[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1368938432.2611.5@driftwood>
Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 23:40:32 -0500
From: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: cpuset/affinity interfaces and TSX lock elision in musl
On 05/17/2013 12:29:03 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > locks should not be the bottleneck in applications
> > unless there is too much shared state on hot paths,
> > which is probably a design bug or a special use-case
> > for which non-standard synchronization methods may
> > be better anyway
>
> One place where there is unfortunately a huge amount of shared state
> is memory management; this is inevitable. Even if we don't use lock
> elision for pthread locks, it might be worth considering using it
> _internally_ in malloc when it's available. It's hard to say without
> any measurements, but this might result in a malloc that beats
> ptmalloc, etc. without any thread-locale management.
I thought the point of futexes was that in the non-contention case you
don't enter the kernel at all?
I really don't see how lock elision is supposed to improve upon that.
If you're optimizing the contended case, something is wrong.
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
