In message <20020726125605.A2822@phreaker.net> you write:
> This patch was not meant to be a definitive fix for do_gettimeofday.
> I thought having diffrent locks on the same cacheline was bad. Atleast,
> I don't think there'd be any negative performance impact due to my patch.
> Pls correct me if I am wrong.
Did you ever wonder why we don't declare spinlock to be ____cacheline_aligned?
While it's probably justified in this case, you pay for it in a slight
increase in size...
> I want to get some nos too .. and probably will...(still waiting for my
> turn to use the 4way here :-) ). But, I decided to post this patch
> as a follow up to the 2.5 profiler discussion on lse-tech.
> Anywayz, point taken. Next time I submit an optimization patch to you,
> I'll post the measuements too.
Sure!
Thanks,
Rusty.
-- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - 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 : Tue Jul 30 2002 - 14:00:23 EST