[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0808231100090.3363@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> Now, let me explain why I need at least not one, but _four different_
> contention bits. Simply because there are four types of contention, one
> for each execution context which may take the read lock. (irq, softirq,
> non-preemptable, preemptable)
No. You need _one_ contention bit in the fast-path.
Then, as you get into the slow-path, you can decide on four different
behaviours.
Quite frankly, I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. I don't
think I'd take anything from you, since you seem to have a really hard
time separating out the issue of fast-path and slow-path. So I'm simply
not going to bother, and I'm not going to expect to merge your work.
Sorry, but it simply isn't worth my time or effort.
Linus
--
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