[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130830121227.3915ffb3@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 12:12:27 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: sedat.dilek@...il.com
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] spinlock: A new lockref structure for lockless
update of refcount
On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 17:38:47 +0200
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com> wrote:
> A Samsung series-5 ultrabook.
>
> $ grep "model name" /proc/cpuinfo | uniq
> model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2467M CPU @ 1.60GHz
I believe the number of CPUs is more important. But as this is an
ultrabook, I doubt that is very high.
Now I know this isn't going to be popular, but I'll suggest it anyway.
What about only implementing the lockref locking when CPUs are greater
than 7, 7 or less will still use the normal optimized spinlocks.
-- Steve
--
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