>>>>> "Ingo" == Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> writes:
Ingo> On 1 Feb 2002, Momchil Velikov wrote:
>> So, we can use a read-write spinlock instead ->i_shared_lock, ok ?
Ingo> using read-write locks does not solve the scalability problem: the problem
Ingo> is the bouncing of the spinlock cacheline from CPU to CPU.
Does cache line bounce (shared somewhere -> exclusive elsewhere) cost
more that a simple miss (present nowhere -> exclusive somewhere) ?
Regards,
-velco
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 21:00:12 EST