lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 07:29:51AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> It should not be needed anymore for 2.4, because the accept() wakeup has been
> fixed.

Certainly sleeping in accept will be just way better than file any locking.

OTOH accept() is still _wrong_ as it wake-one FIFO while it should wake-one
LIFO (so that we optimize the cache usage skip TLB flushes and allow the
redundand tasks to be paged out). I can only see cons in doing FIFO wake-one.

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.056 / U:7.340 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site