On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hey, > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 09:52:35AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > > Eh? Are you saying the above can't happen or the above doesn't > > > matter? > > > > Its an artificial use case that does not reflect the realities on how > > these counters are typically used. > > Gees, Christoph. That is a test case to show the issue prominently, > which is what a test case is supposed to do. What it means is that > _any_ update can trigger @batch deviation on _sum() regardless of its > frequency or concurrency level and that's the nastiness I've been > talking about over and over again. As far as I understand it: This is a test case where you want to show us the atomic_t type behavior of _sum. This only works in such an artificial test case. In reality batches of updates will modify any 'accurate' result that you may have obtained from the _sum function. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>