Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:53:29 +0530 | From | Srivatsa Vaddagiri <> | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 2/7] UBC: core (structures, API) |
| |
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 03:02:17PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote: > > Except that you eventually have to lock ub0. Seems that the cache line > > for that spinlock could bounce quite a bit in such a hot path. > do you mean by ub0 host system ub which we call ub0 > or you mean a top ub?
If this were used for pure resource management purpose (w/o containers) then the top ub would be ub0 right? "How bad would the contention on the ub0->lock be then" is I guess Matt's question.
-- Regards, vatsa - 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/
| |