On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 13:12 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Sébastien Dugué <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 10:10 +0200, Sébastien Dugué wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 08:32 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > * Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Should the futex code be using hlist_heads for that hashtable?
> > > >
> > > > yeah. That would save 1K of .data on 32-bit platforms, 2K on 64-bit
> > > > platforms.
> > >
> > > I'll try to look into this.
> > >
> >
> > Well, moving the hash bucket list to an hlist may save a few bytes
> > on .data, but all the insertions are done at the tail on this list
> > which would not be easily done using hlists.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
>
> just queue to the head. This is a hash-list, ordering has only
> performance effects.
>
Queuing to the head would mean that tasks are woken up in LIFO order
(i.e. the last task put to sleep will be the first to be woken up).
I'm not sure that's what people would expect, or am I missing
something here?
Sébastien.
-
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]
