* Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > One downside would be an increase in mutex structure size though.
>
> If I do need to add an additional lock to the mutex, I would abstract
> it all, so that the old global pi_lock can be used if configured.
> This way, a UP or a low memory 2x SMP machine can still use the old
> method, but when it needs to grow, switch over to the new non-global
> pi_locking method. But, maybe I can still get away with just using
> the wait_lock and not add any more overhead to the size of the mutex.
We want to reduce configurability, not increase it. Having something
like a selectable _core design property_ leads to madness and hard to
maintain code very quickly.
also, we already have a per-lock spinlock. Why not use that?
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |