From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, dhowells@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
niv@us.ibm.com, dvhltc@us.ibm.com, lethal@linux-sh.org,
kernel@wantstofly.org, matthew@wil.cx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] v4 RCU: the bloatwatch edition
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 12:19:08 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090506121908.1fcd3afc.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090506190216.GE6771@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Wed, 6 May 2009 12:02:16 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > i'm wondering what Andrew thinks - he had objections, right?
> > >
> >
> > More like "concerns". It's unobvious to me that the modest .text
> > savings justify the costs of an additional RCU implementation. Where
> > those costs include
> >
> > - additional maintenance work and
> >
> > - the reduced code reliability which comes from fragmenting the
> > tester base. This will mostly affect users of the less popular RCU
> > implementations.
> >
> > But hey, maybe I'm wrong. And maybe I'm right, but we'll merge it anyway ;)
>
> ;-)
>
> How about if acceptance of Tiny RCU happens at the same time as Classic
> RCU is dropped? That would be a large net decrease in code size and
> complexity.
It's a bit artificial to link the two actions. Removing something:
good. Adding something: bad. good+bad == less good ;)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-06 19:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-02 16:34 [PATCH] v4 RCU: the bloatwatch edition Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-05 21:18 ` David Howells
2009-05-06 12:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-06 18:24 ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-06 19:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-06 19:19 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2009-05-06 20:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-06 22:22 ` David Howells
2009-05-06 22:51 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-06-22 11:43 ` David Howells
2009-06-22 12:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-22 15:29 ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-22 16:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-06-22 16:15 ` David Howells
2009-06-22 18:09 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-06-22 16:30 ` Darren Hart
2009-06-22 17:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-06-23 9:48 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-23 12:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20090506121908.1fcd3afc.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=kernel@wantstofly.org \
--cc=lethal@linux-sh.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/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