lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: andrea buffer code (2.2.9-C.gz)
On Thu, 20 May 1999, Matthew Kirkwood wrote:

>Indeed. In cases like these, might it make some sense to have some fixed
>number of spinlocks and choose which to use with some reductive function?

Impacting runtime performances to SMP scale better, is going to lose
according to me. I think that if you want to SMP scale better it worth to
pay _only_ with memory wastage and _not_ with wasted CPU cycles.

But as just said masp0008 raised the issue of the io_request_lock that is
just held all the time so we can't scale better at all even using one
spinlock per bit of memory in the machine :-). This is the only thing that
obviously convinced me to remove the spinlock immediatly.

My latest code is placed here. masp0008 feel free to give it a review.

ftp://e-mind.com/pub/andrea/kernel-patches/buffer-2.2.9-L.gz

Thanks.

Andrea Arcangeli


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [W:0.064 / U:6.104 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site