[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/7] barrier: a scalable synchonisation barrier
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 04:24:35PM +0100, Ingo Molnar 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.

Thanks for the wonderful and indepth explanation </sarcasm>
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: 2007-01-28 16:37    [W:0.056 / U:14.120 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site