Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:

Rik van Riel
2000-10-30T16:39:13Z

On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> 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.

LIFO wakeup is indeed the way to go for things like accept().

For stuff like ___wait_on_page(), OTOH, you really want FIFO
wakeup to avoid starvation (yes, I know we're currently doing
wake_all in ___wait_on_page ;))...

regards,

Rik
--
"What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!"
-- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000

http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/