Re: [PATCH 3/7] barrier: a scalable synchonisation barrier

[Ingo Molnar]

* Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 12:51:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > This barrier thing is constructed so that it will not write in the 
> > sync() condition (the hot path) when there are no active lock 
> > sections; thus avoiding cacheline bouncing. -- I'm just not sure how 
> > this will work out in relation to PI. We might track those in the 
> > barrier scope and boost those by the max prio of the blockers.
> 
> Is this really needed?  We seem to grow new funky locking algorithms 
> exponentially, while people already have a hard time understanding the 
> existing ones.

yes, it's needed.

	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/