[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100726155122.GB26412@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:51:22 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
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 Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 05:46:30PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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.
Sure. Where's that, exactly?
> --
> 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