Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 13 Jan 2010 07:58:45 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory barrier (v5) |
| |
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 09:39:56PM -0800, Nicholas Miell wrote: > On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 21:31 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Why is it OK to ignore the developer's request for an expedited > > membarrer()? The guy who expected the syscall to complete in a few > > microseconds might not be so happy to have it take many milliseconds. > > By the same token, the guy who specified non-expedited so as to minimally > > disturb other threads in the system might not be so happy to see them > > all be IPIed for no good reason. ;-) > > > > Thanx, Paul > > Because the behavior is still correct, even if it is slower than you'd > expect. It doesn't really matter where the expedited flag goes, though, > because every future kernel will understand it.
In a real-time application, no shortage of which run on Linux, "going slower than you expect" is a bug, right?
Thanx, Paul
| |