[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080425211250.GA13858@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:12:50 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: Announce: Semaphore-Removal tree
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 01:38:37PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> I was reviewing your patches, and I don't like the semaphore to spinlock
> changes.. There's no reason to start adding spinlocks, unless it's
> really performance sensitive which none of those places are..
Yes, there is. The spinlock is our most efficient locking primitive
for the normal mostly un-contentded case. Please get out of your
realtime-ghetto.
--
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