Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This patch (along with the subsequent one to optimise unlock_page) reduces > the overhead of lock_page/unlock_page (measured with page faults and a patch > to lock the page in the fault handler) by about 425 cycles on my 2-way G5.
Seems reasonable, though test_and_set_lock_bit() might be a better name. > +There are two special bitops with lock barrier semantics (acquire/release, > +same as spinlocks). You should update Documentation/memory-barriers.txt also. > #define TestSetPageLocked(page) \ > test_and_set_bit(PG_locked, &(page)->flags) > +#define TestSetPageLocked_Lock(page) \ > + test_and_set_bit_lock(PG_locked, &(page)->flags) Can we get away with just moving TestSetPageLocked() to the new function rather than adding another accessor? Or how about LockPageLocked() and UnlockPageLocked() rather than SetPageLocked_Lock() that last looks wrong somehow. The FRV changes look reasonable, btw. David - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/