On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 02:49:34PM +0530, Raghavendra KT wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Raghavendra KT
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Breaking up locks is better than implementing high-contention locks, but
> >> if we must h
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Raghavendra KT
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
>>
>> Breaking up locks is better than implementing high-contention locks, but
>> if we must have high-contention locks, why not make them automatically
>> switch between light
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 09:28:16AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On 06/14/2013 07:57 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 07:25:57AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:55:41AM +0800, La
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 03:12:43PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On 06/14/2013 07:57 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 07:25:57AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:55:41AM +0800, La
On 06/14/2013 07:57 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 07:25:57AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Paul E. McKenney
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:55:41AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
On 06/12/2013 11:40 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
On 06/14/2013 07:57 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 07:25:57AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Paul E. McKenney
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:55:41AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
On 06/12/2013 11:40 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 07:25:57AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:55:41AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> >> On 06/12/2013 11:40 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > Breaking up locks is better than implementing
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:55:41AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> On 06/12/2013 11:40 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> > Breaking up locks is better than implementing high-contention locks, but
>> > if we must have high-contention locks, wh
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:55:41AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On 06/12/2013 11:40 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Breaking up locks is better than implementing high-contention locks, but
> > if we must have high-contention locks, why not make them automatically
> > switch between light-weight ti
On 06/12/2013 11:40 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Breaking up locks is better than implementing high-contention locks, but
> if we must have high-contention locks, why not make them automatically
> switch between light-weight ticket locks at low contention and queued
> locks at high contention? Af
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:13:47AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > Breaking up locks is better than implementing high-contention locks, but
> > if we must have high-contention locks, why not make them automatically
> > switch between li
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> Breaking up locks is better than implementing high-contention locks, but
> if we must have high-contention locks, why not make them automatically
> switch between light-weight ticket locks at low contention and queued
> locks at high cont
Breaking up locks is better than implementing high-contention locks, but
if we must have high-contention locks, why not make them automatically
switch between light-weight ticket locks at low contention and queued
locks at high contention? After all, this would remove the need for
the developer to
13 matches
Mail list logo
