Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:39:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:39:03 -0500 Received: from brutus.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.146]:54003 "EHLO brutus.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:38:54 -0500 Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 14:36:39 -0200 (BRDT) From: Rik van Riel To: Andrea Arcangeli cc: Andi Kleen , dean gaudet , Alan Cox , Andrew Morton , kumon@flab.fujitsu.co.jp, Alexander Viro , "Jeff V. Merkey" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Olaf Kirch Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: In-Reply-To: <20001030162815.B21935@athlon.random> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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/ - 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/