lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 08 of 11] anon-vma-rwsem


    On Thu, 8 May 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
    >
    > Unfortunately the lock you're talking about would be:
    >
    > static spinlock_t global_lock = ...
    >
    > There's no way to make it more granular.

    Right. So what?

    It's still about a million times faster than what the code does now.

    You comment about "great smp scalability optimization" just shows that
    you're a moron. It is no such thing. The fact is, it's a horrible
    pessimization, since even SMP will be *SLOWER*. It will just be "less
    slower" when you have a million CPU's and they all try to do this at the
    same time (which probably never ever happens).

    In other words, "scalability" is totally meaningless. The only thing that
    matters is *performance*. If the "scalable" version performs WORSE, then
    it is simply worse. Not better. End of story.

    > mmu_notifier_register can take ages. No problem.

    So what you're saying is that performance doesn't matter?

    So why do you do the ugly crazy hundred-line implementation, when a simple
    two-liner would do equally well?

    Your arguments are crap.

    Anyway, discussion over. This code doesn't get merged. It doesn't get
    merged before 2.6.26, and it doesn't get merged _after_ either.

    Rewrite the code, or not. I don't care. I'll very happily not merge crap
    for the rest of my life.

    Linus


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-05-08 00:49    [W:0.043 / U:0.364 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site