From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: pbonzini@redhat.com (Paolo Bonzini)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:25:33 +0200
Subject: [ltt-dev] [RFC PATCHv2 4/5] urcu: re-implment urcu-qsbr
In-Reply-To: <4E5C5141.1050103@cn.fujitsu.com>
References: <cover.1314003233.git.laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
	<7a284c3769a00c1e3c859d39b51fa77e07d785ea.1314003233.git.laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
	<4E55E5BB.3000608@cn.fujitsu.com> <4E55ECAE.8030804@redhat.com>
	<4E56011C.30100@cn.fujitsu.com> <4E560952.3070809@redhat.com>
	<4E5B06C8.3060108@cn.fujitsu.com> <20110829125603.GB10228@Krystal>
	<4E5C5141.1050103@cn.fujitsu.com>
Message-ID: <4E5C9E7D.2080501@redhat.com>

On 08/30/2011 04:56 AM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> When readers>  cores, the n_updates is very unstable, so the result of n_updates makes less sense.
>
> The result show Paolo's patch has advance,
> but my patch has more advance for reader site performance.

No doubt about that---we're just looking for the right abstraction for 
your patch.

Do you have a pointer to a paper or something explaining the "proxy 
lock" concept?

Paolo