lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Aug]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch-2.4.0-test7-pre7] do_fork() optimization.
tested, using various tests (e.g. unixbench) - works fine.


On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> > >
> > > I was thinking if I could get a few more cycles out of do_fork() (the
> > > recent SCO propaganda about their _lwp_create(2) being faster than our
> > > clone(2) made me think). And I noticed that get_pid() doesn't actually
> > > need the lastpid_lock because it is only ever called from do_fork() inside
> > > the lock_kernel(). So, here is the obvious patch.
> >
> > Hmm.. I'd rather get rid of the _other_ spinlock, namely the kernel lock.
> >
> > I don't actually see anything that requires or even _wants_ the kernel
> > lock anywhere. Can anybody tell me what I'm missing?
> >
>
> I will test without BKL on my SMP and let you know. The code seems fine
> but I may be blind...
>
> regards,
> Tigran
>
>

-
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 12:37    [W:0.021 / U:8.008 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site