Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@xxxxxxxxx>
---
SMPdesign/SMPdesign.tex | 2 +-
SMPdesign/partexercises.tex | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/SMPdesign/SMPdesign.tex b/SMPdesign/SMPdesign.tex
index 72ea870..d2b092d 100644
--- a/SMPdesign/SMPdesign.tex
+++ b/SMPdesign/SMPdesign.tex
@@ -954,7 +954,7 @@ We could simply assign each CPU one gigabyte of memory, and allow
each CPU to access its own private chunk of memory, without the
need for locking and its complexities and overheads.
Unfortunately, this simple scheme breaks down if an algorithm happens
-to have CPU 0 allocate all of the memory and CPU 1 the free it, as
+to have CPU~0 allocate all of the memory and CPU~1 the free it, as
would happen in a simple producer-consumer workload.
The other extreme, code locking, suffers from excessive lock contention
diff --git a/SMPdesign/partexercises.tex b/SMPdesign/partexercises.tex
index 5d46e70..8b3aa18 100644
--- a/SMPdesign/partexercises.tex
+++ b/SMPdesign/partexercises.tex
@@ -597,7 +597,7 @@ and \co{pdeq_pop_r()} implementations separately.
The \co{pdeq_pop_l()} implementation is shown on lines~1-16
of the figure.
-Line 5 acquires the left-hand lock, which line~14 releases.
+Line~5 acquires the left-hand lock, which line~14 releases.
Line~6 attempts to left-dequeue an element from the left-hand underlying
double-ended queue, and, if successful, skips lines~8-13 to simply
return this element.
--
1.9.1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe perfbook" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
