![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 03:15:29AM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > Roman: any ideas about what you would prefer? You'll notice > > atomic_inc_not_zero replaces rcuref_inc_lf, which is used several times > > in the VFS. > > In the larger picture I'm not completely happy with these scalibilty > patches, as they add extra overhead at the lower end. On a UP system in > general nothing beats: > > spin_lock(); > if (*ptr) > ptr += 1; > spin_unlock(); > > The main problem is here that the atomic functions are used in two basic > situation: Are you talking about the lock-free fdtable patches ? They don't replace non-atomic locked critical sections by atomic operations. Reference counting is already there to extend the life of objects beyond locked critical setions. Thanks Dipankar - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-09-17 07:43 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||