[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync
On Fri, Nov 24 2006, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Ok, synchronize_xxx() passed 1 hour rcutorture test on dual P-III.
> It behaves the same as srcu but optimized for writers. The fast path
> for synchronize_xxx() is mutex_lock() + atomic_read() + mutex_unlock().
> The slow path is __wait_event(), no polling. However, the reader does
> atomic inc/dec on lock/unlock, and the counters are not per-cpu.
> Jens, is it ok for you? Alan, Paul, what is your opinion?

This looks good from my end, much more appropriate than the current SRCU
code. Even if I could avoid synchronize_srcu() for most cases, when I
did have to issue it, the 3x synchronize_sched() was a performance

Thanks Oleg! And Alan and Paul for your excellent ideas.

Jens Axboe

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-11-24 21:07    [W:0.213 / U:0.316 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site