lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] move task_struct allocation to arch
Roman Zippel wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, David Howells wrote:
>
> > Firstly, in response to me having supplied a patch that made a set of four
> > byte-size values as the status area in the task_struct:
> >
> > | For the future, the biggest thing I'd like to see is actually to make
> > | "work" be a bitmap, because the "bytes are atomic" approach simply isn't
> > | portable anyway, so we might as well make things _explicitly_ atomic and
> > | use bit operations. Otherwise the alpha version of "work" would have to be
> > | four bytes per "bit" of information, which sounds really excessive.
>
> As I mentioned before I more like the byte approach, since atomic bit
> field handling is quite expensive on most architectures, where a simple
> set/clear byte is only one or two instructions, if there is byte
> load/store instruction. So I'd really like to see to leave the decision to
> the architecture, whether to use bit or byte fields.

We have tons of code already using atomic test_and_set_bit type
stuff... why not just make sure your bit set/clear stuff is fast? :)

Jeff


--
Jeff Garzik | "I went through my candy like hot oatmeal
Building 1024 | through an internally-buttered weasel."
MandrakeSoft | - goats.com
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.536 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site