[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1507101224440.21165@east.gentwo.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:26:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Chris Mason <clm@...com>
cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org"
<ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Shaohua Li <shli@...com>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] lightweight per-cpu locks /
restartable sequences
On Thu, 9 Jul 2015, Chris Mason wrote:
> I think the topic is really interesting and we'll be able to get numbers
> from production workloads to help justify and compare different
> approaches.
Ok that would be important. I also think that the approach may be used
in kernel to reduce the overhead of CONFIG_PREEMPT and also to implement
fast versions of this_cpu_ops for non x86 architectures and maybe even
optimize the x86 variants if interrupts also can detect critical sections
and restart at defined points.
--
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