On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 08:38 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > I kind of like the lock-less list implementation (it could easily be > useful for random things, and it's very simple). Yes, there's various implementations floating around, and we already have one in-kernel ( net/rds/xlist.h ), mason and axboe and me have been kicking around various patches using that thing in other circumstances as well. [ At some point we had perf -- what now is kernel/irq_work.c -- using it as well, but the new code grew too complex due to requirements from Huang ] > And I don't think the > notion of a lockless memory allocator is wrong either, although it > looks a lot more specialized than the list thing (the solution to > lockless allocations is generally simply to do them ahead of time). > Right, I don't generally object to lockless things, but they either need to be 1) faster than the existing code, and/or 2) have a very convincing use-case (other than performance) for their added complexity. Afaict the proposed patch adds lots more LOCK'ed instructions into that allocator path than it removes, ie its a slow down for existing users. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
