Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:39:41 +0000
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] barrier: a scalable synchonisation barrier
Message-ID: <20070128143941.GA16552@infradead.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
References: <20070128115118.837777000@programming.kicks-ass.net> <20070128120509.719287000@programming.kicks-ass.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070128120509.719287000@programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 802
Lines: 16

On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 12:51:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> This barrier thing is constructed so that it will not write in the sync()
> condition (the hot path) when there are no active lock sections; thus avoiding
> cacheline bouncing. -- I'm just not sure how this will work out in relation to
> PI. We might track those in the barrier scope and boost those by the max prio
> of the blockers.

Is this really needed?  We seem to grow new funky locking algorithms
exponentially, while people already have a hard time understanding
the existing ones.

-
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/