[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync
    On Fri, Nov 24 2006, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
    > Ok, synchronize_xxx() passed 1 hour rcutorture test on dual P-III.
    > It behaves the same as srcu but optimized for writers. The fast path
    > for synchronize_xxx() is mutex_lock() + atomic_read() + mutex_unlock().
    > The slow path is __wait_event(), no polling. However, the reader does
    > atomic inc/dec on lock/unlock, and the counters are not per-cpu.
    > Jens, is it ok for you? Alan, Paul, what is your opinion?

    This looks good from my end, much more appropriate than the current SRCU
    code. Even if I could avoid synchronize_srcu() for most cases, when I
    did have to issue it, the 3x synchronize_sched() was a performance

    Thanks Oleg! And Alan and Paul for your excellent ideas.

    Jens Axboe

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-11-24 21:07    [W:0.018 / U:4.736 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site