Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 10 Sep 2000 23:28:28 -0600 | From | "Jeff V. Merkey" <> | Subject | Re: Availability of kdb |
| |
"David S. Miller" wrote:
> Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 18:14:03 -0600 > From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@timpanogas.com> > > Linus' apparently did not understand this, or he would have > immediately realized that double locking was always generating a > second non-cacheable memory reference for every lock being taken > and released. > > Jeff, after working together with Linus for 6 or so years myself, I > would make a large wager that Linus understands these issues much > better than even you. > > But then again, as previously stated, I don't take you very seriously, > but I fear that there are a few on this list who still do. > > Later, > David S. Miller > davem@redhat.com
David,
You shouldn't fault me because I worked on commercial software for so long. I did the hardware profiling of this stuff in 1993 -- long before Linux was even doing SMP. I spent many sleepless nights in Building F on the Provo campus comparing 'mov <addr>, 0' and "lock bts, <addr>' to see what would happen. Long before you guys had even written your first spinlock ......
Jeff
- 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/
|  |