lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH -v10 0/4] Lock-less list
    From
    Date
    On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 16:52 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:45:58 +0800
    > Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
    >
    > > On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 05:55 +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > > I'm trying to remember why we're talking about this.
    > > >
    > > > You had an ACPI-based "hardware error reporting" thing. And that
    > > > required an nmi-context memory allocator. And that required a
    > > > "lockless" list implementation.
    > > >
    > > > Yes?
    > >
    > > Yes. But the "lockless" list implementation is general, it can be used
    > > by other part of kernel too, such as irq_work and xlist in
    > > net/rds/xlist.h in the patchset.
    >
    > Well. Lots of things are general but that doesn't mean we toss them
    > into the kernel when we already have plenty of infrastructure to handle
    > that sort of thing.
    >
    > otoh, hoisting xlist.h out of net/rds and making it generally available
    > is a good thing.
    >
    > otooh, net/rds/ probably didn't need xlist at all and could have used
    > existing general code.
    >
    > So... I'd say that unless and until the NMI-context allocator is
    > merged, the case for merging the lockless list code is a bit marginal?
    > Or have you identified other code sites which could use llist and which
    > would gain some benefit from migrating?

    In fact, I have a patch ready and waiting to revert the whole irq_work
    stuff, that too seems to be a superfluous generalization.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-01-20 11:45    [W:0.032 / U:30.108 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site