From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/7] epoll keyed wakeups - introduce key-aware wakeup macros
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:03:07 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0901311101070.18888@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090131092509.7c658b22@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Alan Cox wrote:
> > One minor worry i have: these wakeup calls are _very_ common in the
> > kernel, and this patch adds an extra parameter to it that is unused (NULL)
> > in 99% of the cases.
>
> And in most of the cases it is used is constant for the waitqueue anyway
> or appears to be (eg the tty patch). I don't think we should be stacking
> extra parameters on all those zillions of calls made all over the kernel
> and for no purpose - so the existing wakeup functions should stay as is
> for performance as well as for size (which due to cache pressure is
> performance).
Besides for that, did the TTY patch look sane to you? Did I get all the
wakeup points? TTY code always gave me the willies :)
- Davide
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-31 19:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-31 3:25 Davide Libenzi
2009-01-31 3:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-31 3:50 ` Davide Libenzi
2009-01-31 3:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-31 13:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-31 18:57 ` Davide Libenzi
2009-01-31 9:25 ` Alan Cox
2009-01-31 19:03 ` Davide Libenzi [this message]
2009-01-31 3:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-31 4:01 ` Davide Libenzi
2009-01-31 4:57 ` wli
2009-01-31 19:08 ` Davide Libenzi
2009-01-31 21:28 ` wli
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.1.10.0901311101070.18888@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com \
--to=davidel@xmailserver.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®