Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:32:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:32:44 -0500 Received: from penguin.e-mind.com ([195.223.140.120]:55347 "EHLO penguin.e-mind.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:32:38 -0500 Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:28:15 +0100 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: Andi Kleen Cc: dean gaudet , Alan Cox , Andrew Morton , kumon@flab.fujitsu.co.jp, Alexander Viro , "Jeff V. Merkey" , Rik van Riel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Olaf Kirch Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Message-ID: <20001030162815.B21935@athlon.random> In-Reply-To:

<20001030072950.A31668@gruyere.muc.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20001030072950.A31668@gruyere.muc.suse.de>; from ak@suse.de on Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 07:29:51AM +0100 X-GnuPG-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.gnupg.asc X-PGP-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.asc Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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/