Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Look at how the counter works in the XADD-based version. That's the way
> > it is *because* I'm using XADD. That's quite limiting.
>
> Not really. ll/sc architectures "emulate" xadd the same as they would
> emulate a spinlock. There is nothing suboptim
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 08:36:22PM +, David Howells wrote:
> Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Either approach works, and one is better than the current two approaches.
>
> >From one point of view that's true. But from other points of view, it isn't.
>
> > > have be implemented b
Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Either approach works, and one is better than the current two approaches.
>From one point of view that's true. But from other points of view, it isn't.
> > have be implemented by spinlock on some archs, and so your approach is
> > really not optimal in s
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 12:55:16PM +, David Howells wrote:
> Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Move to an architecture independent rwsem implementation, using the
> > better of the two rwsem implementations (ie. the one which doesn't
> > take a spinlock to take an uncontested rwsem)
Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Move to an architecture independent rwsem implementation, using the
> better of the two rwsem implementations (ie. the one which doesn't
> take a spinlock to take an uncontested rwsem) as a basis. This gives
> us a single rwsem design instead of two.
Sigh.
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 11:06:07AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> (resending with correct ML addresses, sorry)
>
> Hi,
>
> This patch needs review and testing from the architecture guys, but
> I would like to consider it because of the obvious maintenance benefits.
Hah, very important detail: patch
6 matches
Mail list logo
