On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 10:15 -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Ladder locking would end up: > > > > lock A0 > > lock B1 > > unlock A0 -> a new operation can start > > lock C2 > > unlock B1 > > lock D5 > > unlock C2 > > ** we do stuff to D5 > > unlock D5 > > > > Instead of taking one lock we would need to take 4?
Yep. > Wont doing so cause significant locking overhead? > We probably would want to run some benchmarks. Right, I was hoping the extra locking overhead would be more than compensated by the reduction in lock contention time. But testing is indeed in order. > Maybe disable the scheme for systems with a small number of > processors? CONFIG_RADIX_TREE_CONCURRENT does exactly this. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
