Re: [PATCH 3/3] futex: fix miss ordered wakeups
From: Daniel Walker
Date: Fri May 23 2008 - 01:36:41 EST
On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 22:24 -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > That's the problem we aren't just covering 99.99% we're trying to cover
> > 100% of cases.. If we don't do it in that one case we may as well not do
> > it at all.
> I have no problem with removing the other ordering. It was added
> because it limited overhead. It is completely wrong to have everybody
> pay for the needs for a very small minority.
I think that ordering is something companies have been wanting for a
long time.. I had a lot of people asking about it, I was glad when it
was added.. However, it all falls down in the one case which we don't
I don't think the overhead for this is all that bad.. Consider that the
worst performance case is the contended case, and this patch adds a very
small amount of code. The vast majority of cases are un-contended , and
it's already know to be slow in the cases which are contended.
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/