Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...>, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Joe Perches <joe@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...>
Date: Saturday, August 23, 2008 - 2:02 pm

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:

No. You need _one_ contention bit in the fast-path.

Then, as you get into the slow-path, you can decide on four different 
behaviours.

Quite frankly, I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. I don't 
think I'd take anything from you, since you seem to have a really hard 
time separating out the issue of fast-path and slow-path. So I'm simply 
not going to bother, and I'm not going to expect to merge your work. 

Sorry, but it simply isn't worth my time or effort.

			Linus
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH] x86_64 : support atomic ops with 64 bits integer val..., Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sat Aug 16, 3:39 am)
Re: [PATCH] x86_64 : support atomic ops with 64 bits integer..., Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sat Aug 16, 11:43 am)
[RFC PATCH] Fair rwlock, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sat Aug 16, 5:19 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair rwlock, Linus Torvalds, (Sat Aug 16, 5:33 pm)
[RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v3, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sun Aug 17, 3:53 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v3, Linus Torvalds, (Sun Aug 17, 12:17 pm)
[RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sun Aug 17, 3:10 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5, Peter Zijlstra, (Mon Aug 25, 3:20 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5, Paul E. McKenney, (Mon Aug 18, 7:25 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Tue Aug 19, 2:04 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Tue Aug 19, 3:33 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5, Linus Torvalds, (Tue Aug 19, 12:48 pm)
[RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Thu Aug 21, 4:50 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Linus Torvalds, (Thu Aug 21, 5:00 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, H. Peter Anvin, (Thu Aug 21, 5:26 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Linus Torvalds, (Thu Aug 21, 5:41 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Linus Torvalds, (Thu Aug 21, 5:15 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sat Aug 23, 1:09 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Linus Torvalds, (Sat Aug 23, 2:02 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sat Aug 23, 4:30 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Linus Torvalds, (Sat Aug 23, 5:40 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Linus Torvalds, (Thu Aug 21, 6:22 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Tue Aug 19, 5:06 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5, Linus Torvalds, (Mon Aug 18, 2:59 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5 (updated benchmar..., Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sun Aug 17, 5:30 pm)