Re: Announce: Semaphore-Removal tree

[Daniel Walker]

On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 17:12 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 01:38:37PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > I was reviewing your patches, and I don't like the semaphore to spinlock
> > changes.. There's no reason to start adding spinlocks, unless it's
> > really performance sensitive which none of those places are.. 
> 
> Yes, there is.  The spinlock is our most efficient locking primitive
> for the normal mostly un-contentded case.  Please get out of your
> realtime-ghetto.

If you can make a case for converting some semaphores to spinlocks be my
guest .. If you have good reasoning I wouldn't stand in the way.. (Real
time converts all the spinlocks to mutexes anyway ..)

Daniel

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/