On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 03:37:42PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 04:03:27PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 04:45:32PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > I would suggest the following:
> > >
> > > - the generic semaphores should use the lock that
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 03:37:05PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Andrea Arcangeli writes:
> > That it is allowed by my generic code that does spin_lock_irq in down_* and
> > spin_lock_irqsave in up_* but it's disallowed by the weaker semantics of the
^
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 04:03:27PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 04:45:32PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > I would suggest the following:
> >
> > - the generic semaphores should use the lock that already exists in the
> >wait-queue as the semaphore spinlock.
>
>
Andrea Arcangeli writes:
> That it is allowed by my generic code that does spin_lock_irq in down_* and
> spin_lock_irqsave in up_* but it's disallowed by the weaker semantics of the
> generic and x86 semaphores 2.4.4pre[2345] (or + David's last patch).
Hang on, who's code is in 2.4.4-pre5? It cl
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 03:17:37PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 04:03:27PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 04:45:32PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > I would suggest the following:
> > >
> > > - the generic semaphores should use the lock that
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 04:03:27PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 04:45:32PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > I would suggest the following:
> >
> > - the generic semaphores should use the lock that already exists in the
> >wait-queue as the semaphore spinlock.
>
>
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 04:45:32PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I would suggest the following:
>
> - the generic semaphores should use the lock that already exists in the
>wait-queue as the semaphore spinlock.
Ok, that is what my generic code does.
> - the generic semaphores should _not
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 03:42:15AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> I'm uncertain if I should drop the list_empty() check from the fast path and if
While dropping the list_empty check to speed up the fast path I faced the same
complexity of the 2.4.4pre4 lib/rwsem.c and so before reinventing the
> About the benchmark you wrote it looks good measure to me, thanks.
As with all benchmarks, take with one pinch of salt and two of Mindcraft:-)
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
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 12:28:09AM +0100, D . W . Howells wrote:
> I benchmarked four different environments:
>
> (1) 2.4.4-pre3 + Andrea's generic rwsem patch
> (2) 2.4.4-pre4 using XADD to implement the rwsems
> (3) same as (2) but with a tweak to make rwsem_wake() less fair
>
You asked for some benchmarks Andrea, so I've obtained some.
The set of test modules can be found at:
ftp://infradead.org/pub/people/dwh/rwsem-test.tar.bz2
(This also includes rwsem-stat.txt which has a copy of the benchmark results
in as well)
There are six test programs. They can b
11 matches
Mail list logo
