You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We have some core data structures in the runtime that are protected by spin locks.
The rationale for this is that they are virtually free (compared to mutexes) in UP, and workable in SMP as they tend to be fast but busy wasting power depending on contention. With low contention they are very performant, but with high contention they are power hungry.
This is an acceptable trade off for now, where SMP is still WIP, but when it's time for production we'll need a more coherent locking strategy. I would love to see some form of futex, so that we can avoid the overhead of full blown mutexes and still protect critical structures without using too much power.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We have some core data structures in the runtime that are protected by spin locks.
The rationale for this is that they are virtually free (compared to mutexes) in UP, and workable in SMP as they tend to be fast but busy wasting power depending on contention. With low contention they are very performant, but with high contention they are power hungry.
This is an acceptable trade off for now, where SMP is still WIP, but when it's time for production we'll need a more coherent locking strategy. I would love to see some form of futex, so that we can avoid the overhead of full blown mutexes and still protect critical structures without using too much power.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: