On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Andrew Morton wrote: > Have the ppc64 and sparc64 people reviewed and acked the change? (Not a > facetious question - I just haven't been following the saga sufficiently > closely to remember).
There should be no change to these arches > > Because if a pte is locked it should not be used. > > Confused. Why not just spin on the lock in the normal manner? I thought you wanted to lock the pte? This is realized through a lock bit in the pte. If that lock bit is set one should not use the pte. Otherwise the lock is bypassed. Or are you proposing a write lock only? > If the other relvant architecture people say "we can use this" then perhaps > we should grin and bear it. But one does wonder whether some more sweeping > design change is needed. Could we at least get the first two patches in? I can then gradually address the other issues piece by piece. The necessary more sweeping design change can be found at http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=110922543030922&w=2 but these may be a long way off. These patches address an urgent issue that we have with higher CPU counts for a long time and the method used here has been used for years in our ProPack line. - 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/