lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] SMP alternatives


On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> Yes. Any shared mmaps may require working lock.

Not "any". Only writable shared mmap. Which is actually the rare case.

Even then, we might want to have such processes have a way to say "I don't
do futexes in this mmap" or similar. Quite often, writable shared mmaps
aren't interested in locked cycles - they are there to just write things
to disk, and all the serialization is done in the kernel when the user
does a "munmap()" or a "msync()".

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.230 / U:0.256 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site