lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH][5/8] Arch agnostic completely out of line locks / ppc64


On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
>
> I think cpu_relax() (or some other primitive) should actually take a
> parameter, this will allow for us to use monitor/mwait on i386 too so
> that in cases where we're spinning waiting on memory modify we could do
> something akin to the following;
>
> while (spin_is_locked(lock))
> cpu_relax(lock);

You can't do it that way. It needs to be arch-specific. When using
something like monitor/mwait (or a "futex", which something like UML might
use), you need to load the value you want to wait on _before_. So the
interface literally would have to be the monitor/mwait interface:

for (;;) {
lockval = monitor(lock);
if (!is_locked(lockval))
break;
mwait(lock, lockval);
}

and the fact is, this is all much better just done in the arch-specific
spinlock code.

Linus
-
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: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.211 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site