One would hope that spinlock unfairness would not be a problem; usually, if there is serious contention for locks, that contention is a performance issue even before fairness is taken into account. Nick Piggin recently revisited this issue, though, after noticing:
"On an 8 core (2 socket) Opteron, spinlock unfairness is extremely noticable, with a userspace test having a difference of up to 2x runtime per thread, and some threads are starved or "unfairly" granted the lock up to 1 000 000 (!) times."
This sort of runtime difference is certainly undesirable. But lock unfairness can also create latency issues; it is hard to give latency guarantees when the wait time for a spinlock can be arbitrarily long. Nick's response was a new spinlock implementation which he calls "ticket spinlocks." Under the initial version of this patch, a spinlock became a 16-bit quantity, split into two bytes: NEXT and OWNER.
In the new scheme, the value of a lock is initialized (both fields) to zero. spin_lock() starts by noting the value of the lock, then incrementing the "next" field - all in a single, atomic operation. If the value of "next" (before the increment) is equal to "owner," the lock has been obtained and work can continue. Otherwise the processor will spin, waiting until "owner" is incremented to the right value. In this scheme, releasing a lock is a simple matter of incrementing "owner."
With the older spinlock implementation, all processors contending for a lock fought to see who could grab it first. Now they wait nicely in line and grab the lock in the order of arrival. Multi-thread run times even out, and maximum latencies are reduced (and, more to the point, made deterministic). There is a slight cost to the new implementation, says Nick, but that gets very small on contemporary processors and is essentially zero relative to the cost of a cache miss - which is a common event when dealing with contended locks.
The implementation described above does have one small disadvantage in that it limits the number of processors to 256 - any more than that, and a heavily-contended lock could lead to multiple processors thinking they had the same ticket number. Needless to say, the resulting potential for mayhem is not something which can be tolerated. But the 256-processor limit is an unwelcome constraint for those working on large systems, which already have rather more processors than that. So the add-on "big ticket" patch - also merged for 2.6.25 - uses 16-bit values when the configured maximum number of processors exceeds 256. That raises the maximum system size to 65536 processors - who could ever want more than that?