Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:08:31 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] v4 RCU: the bloatwatch edition |
| |
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 09:30:29AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > Paul E. McKenney wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 08:29:41AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:49:51 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: >>> >>>> * David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Paul, >>>>> >>>>> Are you going to push your RCU patch for this merge window? >>>> Andrew needs to be convinced for that to happen. >>>> >>> whome? I rarely have firm opinions on anything. iirc the question >>> here was "is it worth adding another RCU implementation to save 900 >>> bytes"? >>> >>> I find it pretty hard to see how to come up with "yes" for that one but >>> it's hardly a huge issue. If you guys feel otherwise then go wild. >> Well, I do need to pull the "expedited" interface into the bloatwatch >> version, and my update of rcutorture made me realize that I can cut >> out a few more bytes, so I will submit an update. For what it is worth, >> here are the opinions expressed on LKML: >> + Ingo Molnar: good documentation, minimal RCU implementation. >> ? Andi Kleen: will there be !SMP systems in the future? >> + Lennert Buytenhek: there will be !SMP ARM for a long time. >> + Paul Mundt: good idea for more-constrained SH platforms. >> + David Howells: Acked-by. works on FRV board. >> ? Andrew Morton: do we really need another RCU implementation? >> Of course, I well remember programming systems with 4K of core memory >> back in the 1970s, and therefore feel a bit guilty about sticking deep >> embedded platforms with the increase in memory footprint represented >> by Hierarchical RCU compared to Classic RCU. And Bloatwatch RCU is much >> smaller and easier to understand/maintain than is Classic RCU. >> So, again, I will forward port, optimize, test, and resubmit. > > IIRC, in previous threads on this topic, the Bloatwatch edition was > expected to replace Classic RCU. If so, wouldn't that address Andrew's > concern of "adding" another implementation?
Andrew expressed a preference for dropping Classic RCU without adding Bloatwatch RCU. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
| |