[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100113155845.GA6803@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 07:58:45 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
dhowells@...hat.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory
barrier (v5)
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 09:39:56PM -0800, Nicholas Miell wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 21:31 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Why is it OK to ignore the developer's request for an expedited
> > membarrer()? The guy who expected the syscall to complete in a few
> > microseconds might not be so happy to have it take many milliseconds.
> > By the same token, the guy who specified non-expedited so as to minimally
> > disturb other threads in the system might not be so happy to see them
> > all be IPIed for no good reason. ;-)
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
>
> Because the behavior is still correct, even if it is slower than you'd
> expect. It doesn't really matter where the expedited flag goes, though,
> because every future kernel will understand it.
In a real-time application, no shortage of which run on Linux, "going
slower than you expect" is a bug, right?
Thanx, Paul
--
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