[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:56:58 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
cc: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] wait-simple: Introduce the simple waitqueue
implementation
On Thu, 12 Dec 2013, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 08:06:37PM -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> >
> > The wait_queue is a swiss army knife and in most of the cases the
> > full complexity is not needed. Here we provide a slim version, as
> > it lowers memory consumption and runtime overhead.
>
> Might it make more sense to just make the simple one the default and use
> the complex one in the few cases that need it?
Sure.
> It would also be good to enumerate those cases. The wake callbacks come
> to mind, but I guess there are more?
You can convert everything which uses default_wake_function and does
not use the exclusive wait trickery.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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