[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1156782789.3034.216.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:33:09 +0200
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: dipankar@...ibm.com
Cc: Paul E McKenney <paulmck@...ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] RCU: various merge candidates
On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 21:59 +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 06:15:48PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 21:38 +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> > > This patchset consists of various merge candidates that would
> > > do well to have some testing in -mm. This patchset breaks
> > > out RCU implementation from its APIs to allow multiple
> > > implementations,
> >
> >
> > can you explain why we would want multiple RCU implementations?
> > Isn't one going to be plenty already?
>
> Hi Arjan,
>
> See this for a background - http://lwn.net/Articles/129511/
>
> Primarily, rcupreempt allows read-side critical sections to
> be preempted unline classic RCU currently in mainline. It is
> also a bit more aggressive in terms of grace periods by counting
> the number of readers as opposed to periodic checks in classic
> RCU.
>
hi,
thanks for the explenation, this for sure explains one half of the
equation; the other half is ... "why do we not always want this"?
Greetings,
Arjan van de Ven
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists