Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: [patch 0/3] 2.6.17 radix-tree: updates and lockless | | From | Benjamin Herrenschmidt <> | | Date | Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:50:28 +1000 |
| |
On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > leave the bug in ppc64 or kill it's scalability > > when taking interrupts ? You have one user already, me. > > I didn't know that 30 minutes ago ;)
Heh, I though I wrote that when I originally asked Nick to bring back his patch up to date :) Bah, anyway, you know now.
> > From what Nick > > says, the patch has been beaten up pretty heavily and seems stable.... > > Well as I say, the tree_lock crash is way more important. We need to work > out what we're going to do then get that fixed, backport the fix to -stable > then rebase the radix-tree patches on top and get > radix-tree-rcu-lockless-readside.patch tested and reviewed. > > I guess we can do all that in time for -rc1, but not knowing _how_ we'll be > fixing the tree_lock crash is holding things up.
Ok.
> Paul, if you could take a close look at the RCU aspects of this work it'd > help, thanks. > > btw guys, theory has it that code which was submitted post-2.6.n is too > late for 2.6.n+1..
Yes but the lockless radix tree patch was floating around a long time ago :)
Anyway, I can drop a spinlock in (in fact I have) the ppc64 irq code for now but that sucks, thus we should really seriously consider having the lockless tree in 2.6.18 or I might have to look into doing an alternate implementation specifically in arch code... or find some other way of doing the inverse mapping there...
Ben.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |