Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:52:49 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: possible spinlock optimizations |
| |
Hi!
> > >no Andrea, this again is just fixing the symptom. Yes, we could zero pages > > > > ??? I am fixing nothing. The old code is not buggy. > > by 'fixing the symptom' i ment 'making the symptom to go away'. The > symptom (the effects of spinlocks held for a long time) can indeed be > considered an 'abstract bug'.
But, Ingo, are we going to add udelay(5000) into slow path to make sure some abstract guy has motivation? Should we add udelay(5000) into select() in order to make people use poll()?
Certainly not.
I think that our slow path should be optimized, too. No need to talk about abstract bugs. No matter how finegrained our locks are, under some workload they still will content, and that's why it is good to optimize it, too. Pavel
-- The best software in life is free (not shareware)! Pavel GCM d? s-: !g p?:+ au- a--@ w+ v- C++@ UL+++ L++ N++ E++ W--- M- Y- R+
- 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/
| |