Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] x86,smp: proportional backoff for ticket spinlocks

[Rik van Riel]

On 12/21/2012 10:14 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> OK, I replied here before reading patch 3 (still reviewing it). Why have
> this patch at all? Just to test if you broke something between this and
> patch 3? Or perhaps patch 3 may not get accepted? In that case, you
> would still need a comment.
>
> Either explicitly state that this patch is just a stepping stone for
> patch 3, and will either be accepted or rejected along with patch 3. Or
> keep it as a stand alone patch and add comments as such. Or just get rid
> of it all together.

I will document this patch better, explaining that it is
a stepping stone, that the number 50 is likely to be
wrong for many systems, and that the next patch fixes
things, using this text in the changelog:



The number 50 is likely to be wrong for many setups, and
this patch is mostly to illustrate the concept of proportional
backup. The next patch automatically tunes the delay value.

--
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/