On 07/26/2010 05:34 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On 07/26/2010 05:25 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> BTW, kthread_worker would benefit from the optimization I implemented >> here as well. > > Hmmm... I'm not quite sure whether it's an optimization. I thought > the patch was due to feeling uncomfortable about using barriers? Is > it an optimization? Yeah, one less smp_mb() in execution path. The lock dancing in flush() is ugly but then again mucking with barriers could be harder to understand. Care to send a patch against wq#for-next tree? Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
