[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090506121908.1fcd3afc.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 12:19:08 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, dhowells@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
niv@...ibm.com, dvhltc@...ibm.com, lethal@...ux-sh.org,
kernel@...tstofly.org, matthew@....cx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] v4 RCU: the bloatwatch edition
On Wed, 6 May 2009 12:02:16 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > i'm wondering what Andrew thinks - he had objections, right?
> > >
> >
> > More like "concerns". It's unobvious to me that the modest .text
> > savings justify the costs of an additional RCU implementation. Where
> > those costs include
> >
> > - additional maintenance work and
> >
> > - the reduced code reliability which comes from fragmenting the
> > tester base. This will mostly affect users of the less popular RCU
> > implementations.
> >
> > But hey, maybe I'm wrong. And maybe I'm right, but we'll merge it anyway ;)
>
> ;-)
>
> How about if acceptance of Tiny RCU happens at the same time as Classic
> RCU is dropped? That would be a large net decrease in code size and
> complexity.
It's a bit artificial to link the two actions. Removing something:
good. Adding something: bad. good+bad == less good ;)
--
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