![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 22:24 -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> wrote: > > That's the problem we aren't just covering 99.99% we're trying to cover > > 100% of cases.. If we don't do it in that one case we may as well not do > > it at all. > > I have no problem with removing the other ordering. It was added > because it limited overhead. It is completely wrong to have everybody > pay for the needs for a very small minority. I think that ordering is something companies have been wanting for a long time.. I had a lot of people asking about it, I was glad when it was added.. However, it all falls down in the one case which we don't handle. I don't think the overhead for this is all that bad.. Consider that the worst performance case is the contended case, and this patch adds a very small amount of code. The vast majority of cases are un-contended , and it's already know to be slow in the cases which are contended. Daniel | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2008-05-23 07:39 [W:0.400 / U:7.970 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||