From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 21:37:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 21:37:21 -0400 Received: from e21.nc.us.ibm.com ([32.97.136.227]:49083 "EHLO e21.nc.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 21:37:11 -0400 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Message-Id: <200110140137.f9E1bYN18728@eng4.beaverton.ibm.com> Subject: Re: Re: RFC: patch to allow lock-free traversal of lists with insertion To: rusty@rustcorp.com.au (Rusty Russell) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 18:37:34 -0700 (PDT) Cc: torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds), dipankar@in.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: from "Rusty Russell" at Oct 14, 2001 06:19:54 AM PST X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >Where, if anywhere, is this worth it? Good question: 3% on 4-way >dbench doesn't cut it in my book... No argument here, we need to show compelling performance cases for RCU in a number of situations. We have some (e.g., for FD set management on 8-way reported at OLS), but need more. We will continue to work on this. If nothing else, this thread seems to have raised awareness of RCU. ;-) Thanx, Paul