Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 21 May 1999 00:44:40 +0200 (CEST) | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: andrea buffer code (2.2.9-C.gz) |
| |
On Thu, 20 May 1999, Matthew Kirkwood wrote:
>Indeed. In cases like these, might it make some sense to have some fixed >number of spinlocks and choose which to use with some reductive function?
Impacting runtime performances to SMP scale better, is going to lose according to me. I think that if you want to SMP scale better it worth to pay _only_ with memory wastage and _not_ with wasted CPU cycles.
But as just said masp0008 raised the issue of the io_request_lock that is just held all the time so we can't scale better at all even using one spinlock per bit of memory in the machine :-). This is the only thing that obviously convinced me to remove the spinlock immediatly.
My latest code is placed here. masp0008 feel free to give it a review.
ftp://e-mind.com/pub/andrea/kernel-patches/buffer-2.2.9-L.gz
Thanks.
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/
| |