[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0901311101070.18888@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:03:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/7] epoll keyed wakeups - introduce key-aware wakeup
macros
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Alan Cox wrote:
> > One minor worry i have: these wakeup calls are _very_ common in the
> > kernel, and this patch adds an extra parameter to it that is unused (NULL)
> > in 99% of the cases.
>
> And in most of the cases it is used is constant for the waitqueue anyway
> or appears to be (eg the tty patch). I don't think we should be stacking
> extra parameters on all those zillions of calls made all over the kernel
> and for no purpose - so the existing wakeup functions should stay as is
> for performance as well as for size (which due to cache pressure is
> performance).
Besides for that, did the TTY patch look sane to you? Did I get all the
wakeup points? TTY code always gave me the willies :)
- Davide
--
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