Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/4] RCU: various merge candidates | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:33:09 +0200 |
| |
On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 21:59 +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 06:15:48PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 21:38 +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote: > > > This patchset consists of various merge candidates that would > > > do well to have some testing in -mm. This patchset breaks > > > out RCU implementation from its APIs to allow multiple > > > implementations, > > > > > > can you explain why we would want multiple RCU implementations? > > Isn't one going to be plenty already? > > Hi Arjan, > > See this for a background - http://lwn.net/Articles/129511/ > > Primarily, rcupreempt allows read-side critical sections to > be preempted unline classic RCU currently in mainline. It is > also a bit more aggressive in terms of grace periods by counting > the number of readers as opposed to periodic checks in classic > RCU. >
hi,
thanks for the explenation, this for sure explains one half of the equation; the other half is ... "why do we not always want this"?
Greetings, Arjan van de Ven
- 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/
| |