Re: why are we reduce spin-lock and replace it with lock-free?

On Thu, 10 May 2007 22:23:32 +0800
"liang yuanen" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Three are many many spin-lock in the kernel code, and in multi-core
> conditions, it push down the kernel performance.why are we reduce
> spin-lock and replace it with lock-free?

If you can find algorithms which are lock free, faster than taking the
lock and have bounded resource consumption then you can test them with
the kernel and send patches. 

Alan
-
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/

References:
- why are we reduce spin-lock and replace it with lock-free?
  - From: "liang yuanen" <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [2.6.22 PATCH 22/26] dm: bio list helpers
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] Add LZO1X compression support to the kernel
Previous by thread: why are we reduce spin-lock and replace it with lock-free?
Next by thread: [PATCH] Kconfig: SCSI_ESP_CORE depends on HAS_DMA
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[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]