Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Bill Davidsen <[email protected]> wrote:
There are no such situations anymore in an optimal userlevel
implementation. The last problem (in pthread_cond_signal) was fixed
by the addition of FUTEX_WAKE_OP. The userlevel code you're looking
at is simply not optimized for the modern kernels.
What are you suggesting here, that the kernel can be inefficient as
long as the user has a way to program around it?
What are you suggesting here, that FUTEX_WAKE_UP is a "user way to
program around" an inefficiency? If yes then please explain to me why
and what you would do differently.
The point I'm making is that even if an application is "not optimized
for modern kernels" or whatever, there's no reason to ignore
inefficiencies. [...]
What are you suggesting here, that the implementation of FUTEX_WAKE_UP
is "ignoring inefficiencies"? Please explain why and what you would do
differently to solve that inefficiency.
I am suggesting that "There are no such situations anymore in an optimal
userlevel implementation" is not the right approach to the original
post. What I would do differently is to evaluate the original suggestion
to see if it would in fact be more efficient. Please read the original
post and take it on merit, it's either an optimizationn or not, and
obviously it's used even if not by some "optimal" user code.
--
bill davidsen <[email protected]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
