Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 01:25:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 01:25:33 -0500 Received: from mailhost.nmt.edu ([129.138.4.52]:36359 "EHLO mailhost.nmt.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 01:25:32 -0500 Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:22:30 -0700 From: Val Henson To: Bill Davidsen Cc: Larry McVoy , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Minutes from Feb 21 LSE Call Message-ID: <20030224062230.GD16803@boardwalk> References: <20030222231552.GA31268@work.bitmover.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Favorite-Color: Polka dot Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 977 Lines: 22 On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 06:57:09PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: > On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Larry McVoy wrote: > > > > But that's a false promise because by definition, fine grained threading > > adds more bus traffic. It's kind of hard to not have that happen, the > > caches have to stay coherent somehow. > > Clearly. And things which require more locking will pay some penalty for > this. But a quick scan of this list on keyword "lockless' will show that > people are thinking about this. Lockless algorithms still generate bus traffic when you do the atomic compare-and-swap or load-linked or whatever hardware instruction you use to implement your lockless algorithm. Caches still have to stay coherent, lock or no lock. -VAL - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/