On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> The question is whether or not it is worth taking a lock again (with
> that non-zero cost) to achieve the gain of doing the 92-byte memset and
> the atomic_set in parallel with other CPUs. In other words, by locking
> and unlocking twice, you reduce th
[Peter Samuelson]
> > Whether a memset of 92 bytes (on 32-bit arch), plus an
> > atomic_set(), are worth deserializing, I do not know.
[Tigran Aivazian]
> Of course, they are worth it. Actually, I don't understand how can
> you even doubt it?
Clearly we are talking at cross-purposes here. I
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Tigran Aivazian]
> > The only reason one could think of was to "hold the lock for as short
> > time as possible" but a minute's thought reveals that such reason is
> > invalid (i.e. one is more likely to waste time spinning on the lock
> > than to save
[Tigran Aivazian]
> The only reason one could think of was to "hold the lock for as short
> time as possible" but a minute's thought reveals that such reason is
> invalid (i.e. one is more likely to waste time spinning on the lock
> than to save it by dropping/retaking it, given the relative dura
Hi Linus,
It is quite clear that dropping and retaking the files_lock in
fs/file_table.c:get_empty_filp() at the label new_one is absolutely
unnecessary. The only reason one could think of was to "hold the lock for
as short time as possible" but a minute's thought reveals that such reason
is inva
5 matches
Mail list logo
