"David S. Miller" wrote:
> Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 18:14:03 -0600
> From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Linus' apparently did not understand this, or he would have
> immediately realized that double locking was always generating a
> second non-cacheable memory reference for every lock being taken
> and released.
>
> Jeff, after working together with Linus for 6 or so years myself, I
> would make a large wager that Linus understands these issues much
> better than even you.
>
> But then again, as previously stated, I don't take you very seriously,
> but I fear that there are a few on this list who still do.
>
> Later,
> David S. Miller
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David,
You shouldn't fault me because I worked on commercial software for so
long. I did the hardware profiling of this stuff in 1993 -- long before
Linux was even doing SMP. I spent many sleepless nights in Building F
on the Provo campus comparing 'mov <addr>, 0' and "lock bts, <addr>' to
see what would happen. Long before you guys had even written your first
spinlock ......
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
