> > Using a bit in the bh->sync will allow SMP to scale very better. And we
>
> Hmm, it was just short-term spinlock, I don't think there is much
> real contention.
Agreed but there could be in the future. This will allow to scale better
in SMP without harming performances I think.
> > Here the latest update:
>
> And what about this (maybe I got the memory barriers wrong, it's just to
> show the idea):
I can't see a big difference. I still like more my version just because I
like to play with the lock with sure atomic operations in task_queue()
while run_task_queue() is spinning on the lock. And theorically some
really nowadays-crazy architecture may want to have 1 byte data at address
-1 (really unlikely to happen I know ;).
Andrea Arcangeli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/