From: Bill Huey (hui) <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org>
To: bert hubert <bert.hubert@netherlabs.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: "Bill Huey (hui)" <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] lock stat for 2.6.19-rt1
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 15:57:26 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061204235726.GA5707@gnuppy.monkey.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061204170856.GA32398@gnuppy.monkey.org>
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 09:08:56AM -0800, Bill Huey wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 01:21:29PM +0100, bert hubert wrote:
> > How tightly is your work bound to -rt? Iow, any chance of separating the
> > two? Or should we even want to?
>
> There's other uses for it as well. Think about RCU algorithms that need
> to spin-try to make sure the update of an element or the validation of
> it's data is safe to do. If an object was created to detect those spins
> it'll track what is effectively contention as well as it is represented
> in that algorithm. I've seen an RCU radix tree implementation do something
> like that.
That was a horrible paragraph plus I'm bored at the moment. What I meant is
that lockless algorithms occasionally have a spin-try associated with it as
well that might possibly validate the data that's updated against the entire
data structure for some kind of consistency cohernecy or possibly on an
individual element. That retry or spin can be considered a contention as well
and it can be made aware to this lock-stat patch just by connecting the
actually occurance of retry logic against a backing object.
I need to be more conscious about proofreading what I write before sending
it off. Was this clear ?
bill
prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-12-04 23:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-12-04 1:53 [PATCH 0/4] lock stat for 2.6.19-rt1 Bill Huey
2006-12-04 12:21 ` bert hubert
2006-12-04 17:08 ` Bill Huey
2006-12-04 23:57 ` Bill Huey [this message]
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=20061204235726.GA5707@gnuppy.monkey.org \
--to=billh@gnuppy.monkey.org \
--cc=bert.hubert@netherlabs.nl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox