On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 03:15:29AM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > Roman: any ideas about what you would prefer? You'll notice
> > atomic_inc_not_zero replaces rcuref_inc_lf, which is used several times
> > in the VFS.
>
> In the larger picture I'm not completely happy with these scalibilty
> patches, as they add extra overhead at the lower end. On a UP system in
> general nothing beats:
>
> spin_lock();
> if (*ptr)
> ptr += 1;
> spin_unlock();
>
> The main problem is here that the atomic functions are used in two basic
> situation:
Are you talking about the lock-free fdtable patches ? They don't replace
non-atomic locked critical sections by atomic operations. Reference counting
is already there to extend the life of objects beyond locked critical
setions.
Thanks
Dipankar
-
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]
| |
 |