On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Waiman Long wrote: > On 07/21/2014 09:01 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > So before anyone comes up with a "solution" for all of this tomorrow > > afternoon in form of another half baken patch, please sit back mull it > > in your head and lets have a proper discussion about the approach > > first. > > > > Thanks, > > > > tglx > > Thank for your thorough analysis and suggestions on what to do to support > spinning futexes. You certainly know more about the internal working of futex > than most of us. I can live with what you have suggested. My patch is just a > proof of concept piece to demonstrate optimistic spinning on futex is > something worthwhile to do. I think I have achieved my goal of stirring We knew that already as Darren has proven that optimistic spinning in a simpler form provides a huge benefit. So you do not have achieved anything except annoying people with your sloppiness. > interest in this area. My next step will be to look into the direction of what > you have suggested and figure out what actual code changes will be needed. You really can do what you want with your time. You can either reread AND understand the paragraph, which I left as a quote from my previous mail, AND act acoordingly or just stay away from futex.c. Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
