[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C4DADD6.90507@kernel.org>
Date:	Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:46:30 +0200
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dmitri Vorobiev <dmitri.vorobiev@...ial.com>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH UPDATED 1/3] vhost: replace vhost_workqueue with per-vhost
 kthread
On 07/26/2010 05:34 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 07/26/2010 05:25 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> BTW, kthread_worker would benefit from the optimization I implemented
>> here as well.
> 
> Hmmm... I'm not quite sure whether it's an optimization.  I thought
> the patch was due to feeling uncomfortable about using barriers?  Is
> it an optimization?
Yeah, one less smp_mb() in execution path.  The lock dancing in
flush() is ugly but then again mucking with barriers could be harder
to understand.  Care to send a patch against wq#for-next tree?
Thanks.
-- 
tejun
--
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
 
