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
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
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
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
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 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.
Ok, that
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 already
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
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.
Ok, 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 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 already
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
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 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
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
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
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
22 matches
Mail list logo
