Re: [PATCH 2/2] del_timer_sync: proof of concept

[Ingo Molnar]

* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I think that separate timer->pending field will require more changes,
> because we can't read/write base+pending atomically.

i think that's the killer argument in favor of the bit-trick. Being able
to read/write base+pending atomically is a good excuse. Using less RAM
alone is not necessarily a good excuse.

Andrew, could we give Oleg's 2 patches a whirl in -mm?

	Ingo
-
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/