![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On 06/14, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 05:59:51PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 06/14, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > ... > > > Another question is if schedule_on_each_cpu() is really such a good > > > example here: it seems these "xxx && yyy" examples could be faster, > > > but I've lost track of this earlier thread. > > > > schedule_on_each_cpu() can't use cancel_ + ->func(), the code should > > be executed on the remote CPU. > > ??? > Actually I meant this "xxx && yyy" schedule_on_each_cpu(): > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121329259203187&w=2 Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, "xxx && yyy" needs only 1 wakeup, so it needs less CPU. But it also more complex, and it is not easy to generalize this. Oleg. | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2008-06-15 12:25 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||