![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 12:51:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > This barrier thing is constructed so that it will not write in the sync() > condition (the hot path) when there are no active lock sections; thus avoiding > cacheline bouncing. -- I'm just not sure how this will work out in relation to > PI. We might track those in the barrier scope and boost those by the max prio > of the blockers. Is this really needed? We seem to grow new funky locking algorithms exponentially, while people already have a hard time understanding the existing ones. - 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: 2007-01-28 15:43 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||