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. (fwd)
my fault of using vger.rutgers.edu propagated, apologies both to Linus and
the world.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:12:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>
To: Tigran Aivazian <tigran@veritas.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: [patch-2.4.0-test7-pre7] do_fork() optimization.



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?

Linus


-
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:0.029 / U:13.484 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site