Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755910AbZJ0QJ6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:09:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755858AbZJ0QJ6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:09:58 -0400 Received: from kuber.nabble.com ([216.139.236.158]:39071 "EHLO kuber.nabble.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755747AbZJ0QJ5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:09:57 -0400 Message-ID: <26080408.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:10:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Patrik Kluba To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: PREEMPT_RCU on UP MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-From: kpajko79@gmail.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 648 Lines: 19 Hi! Does the preemptible RCU implementation have better performance (lower latency?) than the classic RCU implementation on embedded uniprocessor systems? I can't find any information about this in Documentation/. Regards, Patrik Kluba -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/PREEMPT_RCU-on-UP-tp26080408p26080408.html Sent from the linux-kernel mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- 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/