| To: | Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] RCU subscriber_list Process Notification (pnotify) |
| From: | Erik Jacobson <erikj@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:26:22 -0500 |
| Cc: | Erik Jacobson <erikj@xxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, lse-tech@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxx, kingsley@xxxxxxxxxx, canon@xxxxxxxxx, pagg@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050929191149.GD6646@in.ibm.com> |
| References: | <20050921213645.GB28239@sgi.com> <20050922151647.GA30784@infradead.org> <20050929165328.GA15246@sgi.com> <20050929170946.GC6646@in.ibm.com> <20050929180916.GA18619@sgi.com> <20050929191149.GD6646@in.ibm.com> |
| Sender: | pagg-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.6i |
> Oh, I am only pointing out RCU problems. It does make sense to do > some benchmarking and see if it has benefits over rwsem or not. > I would like to see the comparison on one of those SGI behemoths > instead of a 2-cpu box :) I can run the same tests on a bigger box, sure. I guess the host name in the AIM output isn't even that exciting for you -- minime1 :) I'll get some time on a larger system and get back to you. Thanks! -- Erik Jacobson - Linux System Software - Silicon Graphics - Eagan, Minnesota |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] RCU subscriber_list Process Notification (pnotify), Dipankar Sarma |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [patch] Minor PAGG attach/detach semantic change for 2.6.11, kingsley |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] RCU subscriber_list Process Notification (pnotify), Dipankar Sarma |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH] rcu-pnotify-aware Job patch, Erik Jacobson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |