Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If space considerations are that important, we could then reserve one bit
> for the 'wait_lock spinlock'
That makes life quite a bit more tricky, though it does have the advantage
that it closes the reader-jumping-writer window I mentioned.
> Another pos
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:31:52 +0100
David Howells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Break the counter down like this:
>
> 0x - not locked; queue empty
> 0x4000 - locked by writer; queue empty
> 0xc000 - locket by writer; queue occupied
> 0x0nn
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 02:31:52PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The other way happens to be better for everyone else, which is why I
> > think your suggestion to instead move everyone to the spinlock version
> > was weird.
>
> No, you misunderstand me
Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The other way happens to be better for everyone else, which is why I
> think your suggestion to instead move everyone to the spinlock version
> was weird.
No, you misunderstand me. My preferred solution is to leave it up to the arch
and not to make it gen
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 02:43:03PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Yes, this is the case on our 2 premiere SMP powerhouse architectures,
> sparc32 and parsic.
sparc32 is ultra-legacy and I have a tremendous amount of work to do on
SMP there. I don't feel that efficiency of locking primitives is a
cruc
David, you keep saying the same things and don't listen to me.
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 01:09:42PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This patch converts all architectures to a generic rwsem implementation,
> > which will compile down to the same code for i3
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 12:44:50PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think I should put wait_lock after wait_list, so as to get a better
> > packing on most 64-bit architectures.
>
> It makes no difference. struct lockdep_map contains at least one point
Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch converts all architectures to a generic rwsem implementation,
> which will compile down to the same code for i386, or powerpc, for
> example,
> and will allow some (eg. x86-64) to move away from spinlock based rwsems.
Which are better on UP ker
Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think I should put wait_lock after wait_list, so as to get a better
> packing on most 64-bit architectures.
It makes no difference. struct lockdep_map contains at least one pointer and
so is going to be 8-byte aligned (assuming it's there at all). stru
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 12:53:49PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Friday 13 April 2007 12:04:16 Nick Piggin wrote:
> > OK, this patch is against 2.6.21-rc6 + Mathieu's atomic_long patches.
> >
> > Last time this came up I was asked to get some numbers, so here are
> > some in the changelog, capture
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 11:19:30AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 12:04:16PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Remove one level of indirection (kernel/rwsem.c -> lib/rwsem.c), and
> > give a bit of a cleanup (eg remove the fastcall junk) to make the
> > code a bit easier to r
On Friday 13 April 2007 12:04:16 Nick Piggin wrote:
> OK, this patch is against 2.6.21-rc6 + Mathieu's atomic_long patches.
>
> Last time this came up I was asked to get some numbers, so here are
> some in the changelog, captured with a simple kernel module tester.
> I got motivated again because
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 12:04:16PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> OK, this patch is against 2.6.21-rc6 + Mathieu's atomic_long patches.
>
> Last time this came up I was asked to get some numbers, so here are
> some in the changelog, captured with a simple kernel module tester.
> I got motivated again
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 12:04:16PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Remove one level of indirection (kernel/rwsem.c -> lib/rwsem.c), and
> give a bit of a cleanup (eg remove the fastcall junk) to make the
> code a bit easier to read.
Arpopos fastcalls, now that -mregparam=3 is the defaul on i386 and
FA
14 matches
Mail list logo
