Messages in this thread | | | Subject | RE: [2.6.25-rc5-mm1][regression] ia64: hackbench doesn't finish>12 hour | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:16:42 +0100 |
| |
On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 09:04 -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: > > Which makes me wonder, why did you ever use a semaphore here? Looking at > > the code its a straight forward mutex. And when you would have used a > > mutex lockdep would have warned about this. > > The functionality that we are trying to add is to allow up to N > simultaneous processors to execute the critical region. On current > processors/platforms N=1 so a spinlock or mutex would be fine, but > there will be platforms for which N is a small integer greater than > one. Semaphore initialized to N looked to be the ideal primitive > for this (until Motohiro-san ran the test case that showed the path > where we call this code with a spinlock held).
Right, no alternative there.
> Next question is whether it is reasonable to get to this code > while holding a spinlock. Isn't this a problem for architectures > that need to use cross-processor interrupts to do a global TLB > shootdown?
Yeah, semaphores can't be used from hardirq contexts for much the same reasons. But its all ia64 code, right? So I'm not directly seeing how other archs are affected here.
| |