Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:33:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:33:30 -0500 Received: from eventhorizon.antefacto.net ([193.120.245.3]:58498 "EHLO eventhorizon.antefacto.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:33:27 -0500 Message-ID: <3C110B6C.9070709@antefacto.com> Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 18:33:16 +0000 From: Padraig Brady User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.6) Gecko/20011120 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andi Kleen CC: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: horrible disk thorughput on itanium In-Reply-To:

<20011207185847.A20876@wotan.suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andi Kleen wrote: >>You can be thread-safe without sucking dead baby donkeys through a straw. >>I already mentioned two possible ways to fix it so that you have locking >>when you need to, and no locking when you don't. >> > > Your proposals sound rather dangerous. They would silently break recompiled > threaded programs that need the locking and don't use -D__REENTRANT (most > people do not seem to use it). I would worry about threaded progs that don't -D_REENTRANT as they are broken. > I doubt the possible pain from that is > worth it for speeding up an basically obsolete interface like putc. > > i.e. if someone wants speed they definitely shouldn't use putc() It's not just putc, it's all of stdio. Padraig. - 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/