Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 28 Jan 2007 16:24:35 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/7] barrier: a scalable synchonisation barrier |
| |
* Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 12:51:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > This barrier thing is constructed so that it will not write in the > > sync() condition (the hot path) when there are no active lock > > sections; thus avoiding cacheline bouncing. -- I'm just not sure how > > this will work out in relation to PI. We might track those in the > > barrier scope and boost those by the max prio of the blockers. > > Is this really needed? We seem to grow new funky locking algorithms > exponentially, while people already have a hard time understanding the > existing ones.
yes, it's needed.
Ingo - 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/
| |