Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] generalized spin_lock_bit | From | Robert Love <> | Date | 20 Jul 2002 14:19:31 -0700 |
| |
On Sat, 2002-07-20 at 14:15, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> I was hoping to devolve the issue of the implementation of it to arch > maintainers by asking for this. I was vaguely aware that the atomic bit > operations are implemented via hashed spinlocks on PA-RISC and some > others, so by asking for the right primitives to come back up from arch > code I hoped those who spin elsewhere might take advantage of their > window of exclusive ownership.
Yah, me too ;)
> Would saying "Here is an address, please lock it, and if you must flip > a bit, use this bit" suffice? I thought it might give arch code enough > room to wiggle, but is it enough?
I would prefer to do nothing right now. We can implement the general interface but keep the pte_chain_lock abstraction. Individual architectures can optimize their bitwise locking.
If that does not suffice and their is a REAL problem in the future we can look to a better approach...
Robert Love
- 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/
| |