From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Cc: dean gaudet <dean-list-linux-kernel@arctic.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <andrewm@uow.edu.au>,
kumon@flab.fujitsu.co.jp, Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>,
"Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@timpanogas.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Olaf Kirch <okir@monad.swb.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:28:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20001030162815.B21935@athlon.random> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E13pYis-0005Q0-00@the-village.bc.nu> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010291135570.11954-100000@twinlark.arctic.org> <20001030072950.A31668@gruyere.muc.suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <20001030072950.A31668@gruyere.muc.suse.de>; from ak@suse.de on Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 07:29:51AM +0100
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 07:29:51AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> It should not be needed anymore for 2.4, because the accept() wakeup has been
> fixed.
Certainly sleeping in accept will be just way better than file any locking.
OTOH accept() is still _wrong_ as it wake-one FIFO while it should wake-one
LIFO (so that we optimize the cache usage skip TLB flushes and allow the
redundand tasks to be paged out). I can only see cons in doing FIFO wake-one.
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-10-30 15:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200010250736.QAA12373@asami.proc.flab.fujitsu.co.jp>
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010251242050.943-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva>
[not found] ` <200010260138.KAA17028@asami.proc.flab.fujitsu.co.jp>
[not found] ` <200010261405.XAA19135@asami.proc.flab.fujitsu.co.jp>
2000-10-27 6:24 ` Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()? (Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) kumon
2000-10-27 6:32 ` Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: " Jeff V. Merkey
2000-10-27 7:13 ` Alexander Viro
2000-10-27 7:46 ` Andi Kleen
2000-10-27 10:23 ` Andrew Morton
2000-10-27 10:25 ` Andi Kleen
2000-10-27 12:57 ` [PATCH] " kumon
2000-10-28 15:46 ` Andrew Morton
2000-10-28 15:58 ` Andi Kleen
2000-10-28 16:05 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-10-28 16:20 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Alan Cox
2000-10-29 19:45 ` dean gaudet
2000-10-30 6:29 ` Andi Kleen
2000-10-30 15:28 ` Andrea Arcangeli [this message]
2000-10-30 16:36 ` Rik van Riel
2000-10-30 18:02 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2000-10-28 16:46 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) Andrew Morton
2000-10-30 9:27 ` kumon
2000-10-30 15:00 ` Andrew Morton
2000-10-30 23:24 ` dean gaudet
2000-11-04 5:08 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange " Andrew Morton
2000-11-04 6:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2000-11-04 10:54 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of Alan Cox
2000-11-04 17:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2000-11-05 16:22 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2000-11-05 20:21 ` dean gaudet
2000-11-05 22:43 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-04 20:03 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) dean gaudet
2000-11-04 20:42 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange Alan Cox
2000-11-04 20:11 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) dean gaudet
2000-11-04 20:43 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange Alan Cox
2000-11-05 4:52 ` dean gaudet
2000-10-31 15:36 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) Andrew Morton
2000-11-01 1:02 ` kumon
2000-11-02 11:09 ` kumon
2000-11-02 12:50 ` kumon
2000-11-04 5:07 ` Andrew Morton
2000-10-27 8:17 ` Jeff V. Merkey
2000-10-27 10:11 ` kumon
2000-11-04 5:55 ` Preemptive scheduling of woken-up processes kumon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20001030162815.B21935@athlon.random \
--to=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=andrewm@uow.edu.au \
--cc=dean-list-linux-kernel@arctic.org \
--cc=jmerkey@timpanogas.org \
--cc=kumon@flab.fujitsu.co.jp \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=okir@monad.swb.de \
--cc=riel@conectiva.com.br \
--cc=viro@math.psu.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.