lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateSun, 28 Jan 2007 15:34:14 +0000
FromChristoph Hellwig <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/7] barrier: a scalable synchonisation barrier
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 04:24:35PM +0100, Ingo Molnar 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.
> 
> yes, it's needed.

Thanks for the wonderful and indepth explanation </sarcasm>
-
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 16:37    [from the cache]
©2003-2008