On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 04:08:41PM +0400, Nikita Danilov wrote:
> Nick Piggin writes:
> > Hi,
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > /**
> > + * clear_bit_unlock - Clears a bit in memory with release
> > + * @nr: Bit to clear
> > + * @addr: Address to start counting from
> > + *
> > + * clear_bit() is
Nick Piggin writes:
> Hi,
[...]
>
> /**
> + * clear_bit_unlock - Clears a bit in memory with release
> + * @nr: Bit to clear
> + * @addr: Address to start counting from
> + *
> + * clear_bit() is atomic and may not be reordered. It does
s/clear_bit/clear_bit_unlock/ ?
> + *
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 01:22:56PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > +There are two special bitops with lock barrier semantics (acquire/release,
> > +same as spinlocks).
>
> You should update Documentation/memory-barriers.txt also.
>
> > #define
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 01:22:56PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+There are two special bitops with lock barrier semantics (acquire/release,
+same as spinlocks).
You should update Documentation/memory-barriers.txt also.
#define
Nick Piggin writes:
Hi,
[...]
/**
+ * clear_bit_unlock - Clears a bit in memory with release
+ * @nr: Bit to clear
+ * @addr: Address to start counting from
+ *
+ * clear_bit() is atomic and may not be reordered. It does
s/clear_bit/clear_bit_unlock/ ?
+ * contain a
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 04:08:41PM +0400, Nikita Danilov wrote:
Nick Piggin writes:
Hi,
[...]
/**
+ * clear_bit_unlock - Clears a bit in memory with release
+ * @nr: Bit to clear
+ * @addr: Address to start counting from
+ *
+ * clear_bit() is atomic and may not be
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 04:40:36PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 12:29:27AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 09:06:32AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 01:37:09PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > --
> > > > Introduce
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 12:29:27AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 09:06:32AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 01:37:09PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > --
> > > Introduce test_and_set_bit_lock / clear_bit_unlock bitops with lock
> > > semantics.
> > >
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 01:22:56PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> 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
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 09:06:32AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 01:37:09PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > --
> > Introduce test_and_set_bit_lock / clear_bit_unlock bitops with lock
> > semantics.
> > Add non-trivial for powerpc and ia64. Convert page lock, buffer lock,
>
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 09:06 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 01:37:09PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > --
> > Introduce test_and_set_bit_lock / clear_bit_unlock bitops with lock
> > semantics.
> > Add non-trivial for powerpc and ia64. Convert page lock, buffer lock,
> >
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 01:37:09PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> --
> Introduce test_and_set_bit_lock / clear_bit_unlock bitops with lock semantics.
> Add non-trivial for powerpc and ia64. Convert page lock, buffer lock,
> bit_spin_lock, tasklet locks to use the new locks.
The names are a bit
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
Hi,
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.
It also improves `dd if=big-sparse-file of=/dev/null`
Hi,
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.
It also improves `dd if=big-sparse-file of=/dev/null`
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
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 01:37:09PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
--
Introduce test_and_set_bit_lock / clear_bit_unlock bitops with lock semantics.
Add non-trivial for powerpc and ia64. Convert page lock, buffer lock,
bit_spin_lock, tasklet locks to use the new locks.
The names are a bit clumsy.
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 09:06 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 01:37:09PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
--
Introduce test_and_set_bit_lock / clear_bit_unlock bitops with lock
semantics.
Add non-trivial for powerpc and ia64. Convert page lock, buffer lock,
bit_spin_lock,
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 09:06:32AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 01:37:09PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
--
Introduce test_and_set_bit_lock / clear_bit_unlock bitops with lock
semantics.
Add non-trivial for powerpc and ia64. Convert page lock, buffer lock,
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 01:22:56PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
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
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 12:29:27AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 09:06:32AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 01:37:09PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
--
Introduce test_and_set_bit_lock / clear_bit_unlock bitops with lock
semantics.
Add
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 04:40:36PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 12:29:27AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 09:06:32AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 01:37:09PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
--
Introduce test_and_set_bit_lock
22 matches
Mail list logo