From: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] unify semaphore implementations
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:33:21 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050429053321.GA29884@twiddle.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <17009.33633.378204.859486@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 10:44:17AM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> You have made semaphores bigger and slower on the architectures that
> have load-linked/store-conditional instructions, which is at least
> ppc, ppc64, sparc64 and alpha.
And mips.
While sparc64 doesn't have ll/sc, it does have compare-and-swap and
it's trivial to use that exactly like we use ll/sc. S390 also has
compare-and-swap as its atomic primitive.
Seems to me that the ppc semaphore implementation is superior to the
i386 implementation that seems to have been propagated here. Indeed,
I might think it would help i486, ia64, and amd64 to use the ppc style
compare-and-swap instead of the existing implementation. Care would
have to be taken such that i386 still works, but I suspect the vast
majority of folk don't configure for that.
I would support two or three common implementations, but definitely
not the one implementation presented.
r~
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-04-29 5:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-04-28 18:29 [RFC] unify semaphore implementations Benjamin LaHaise
2005-04-28 18:48 ` James Bottomley
2005-04-28 18:59 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2005-04-28 18:53 ` David S. Miller
2005-04-28 22:40 ` Russell King
2005-04-29 0:42 ` Trond Myklebust
2005-04-29 1:26 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-04-28 22:54 ` David Howells
2005-04-29 0:44 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-04-29 5:33 ` Richard Henderson [this message]
2005-04-29 14:14 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2005-04-29 15:42 ` Trond Myklebust
2005-04-30 1:45 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-04-30 5:13 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-04-30 16:40 ` Trond Myklebust
2005-04-30 1:49 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-04-30 16:50 ` Trond Myklebust
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=20050429053321.GA29884@twiddle.net \
--to=rth@twiddle.net \
--cc=bcrl@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/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.