lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] killed tqueue_lock spinlock
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Patrik Rak wrote:

> > Using a bit in the bh->sync will allow SMP to scale very better. And we
>
> Hmm, it was just short-term spinlock, I don't think there is much
> real contention.

Agreed but there could be in the future. This will allow to scale better
in SMP without harming performances I think.

> > Here the latest update:
>
> And what about this (maybe I got the memory barriers wrong, it's just to
> show the idea):

I can't see a big difference. I still like more my version just because I
like to play with the lock with sure atomic operations in task_queue()
while run_task_queue() is spinning on the lock. And theorically some
really nowadays-crazy architecture may want to have 1 byte data at address
-1 (really unlikely to happen I know ;).

Andrea Arcangeli


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [W:0.132 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site