From: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
To: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
riel@conectiva.com.br
Subject: Re: [PATCH] generalized spin_lock_bit
Date: 20 Jul 2002 14:19:31 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1027199971.1555.797.camel@sinai> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020720211539.GG1096@holomorphy.com>
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
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
To: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
riel@conectiva.com.br
Subject: Re: [PATCH] generalized spin_lock_bit
Date: 20 Jul 2002 14:19:31 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1027199971.1555.797.camel@sinai> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020720211539.GG1096@holomorphy.com>
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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-07-20 21:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-07-20 20:21 [PATCH] generalized spin_lock_bit Robert Love
2002-07-20 20:21 ` Robert Love
2002-07-20 20:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-07-20 20:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-07-20 21:15 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-07-20 21:15 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-07-20 21:19 ` Robert Love [this message]
2002-07-20 21:19 ` Robert Love
2002-07-20 21:20 ` Robert Love
2002-07-20 21:20 ` Robert Love
2002-07-20 23:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-07-20 23:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-07-20 22:27 ` David S. Miller
2002-07-20 22:27 ` David S. Miller
2002-07-20 22:46 ` Robert Love
2002-07-20 22:46 ` Robert Love
2002-07-21 0:26 ` Alan Cox
2002-07-21 0:26 ` Alan Cox
2002-07-21 1:31 ` David S. Miller
2002-07-21 1:31 ` David S. Miller
2002-07-21 13:48 ` Alan Cox
2002-07-21 13:48 ` Alan Cox
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1027199971.1555.797.camel@sinai \
--to=rml@tech9.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=riel@conectiva.com.br \
--cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
--cc=wli@holomorphy.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.