Re: [patch] SMP alternatives
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Wed Nov 23 2005 - 17:22:12 EST
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Yes. Any shared mmaps may require working lock.
Not "any". Only writable shared mmap. Which is actually the rare case.
Even then, we might want to have such processes have a way to say "I don't
do futexes in this mmap" or similar. Quite often, writable shared mmaps
aren't interested in locked cycles - they are there to just write things
to disk, and all the serialization is done in the kernel when the user
does a "munmap()" or a "msync()".
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/