From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] generic rwsems
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:25:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070413102518.GD31487@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070413100416.GC31487@wotan.suse.de>
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 12:04:16PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> OK, this patch is against 2.6.21-rc6 + Mathieu's atomic_long patches.
>
> Last time this came up I was asked to get some numbers, so here are
> some in the changelog, captured with a simple kernel module tester.
> I got motivated again because of the MySQL/glibc/mmap_sem issue.
>
> This patch converts all architectures to a generic rwsem implementation,
> which will compile down to the same code for i386, or powerpc, for
> example, and will allow some (eg. x86-64) to move away from spinlock
> based rwsems.
Oh, and it also converts powerpc and sparc64 to 64-bit counters, so
they can handle more than 32K tasks waiting (which was apparently a
real problem for SGI, and is probably a good thing).
But that reminds me:
> +/*
> + * the semaphore definition
> + */
> +struct rw_semaphore {
> + atomic_long_t count;
> + spinlock_t wait_lock;
> + struct list_head wait_list;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> + struct lockdep_map dep_map;
> +#endif
> +};
I think I should put wait_lock after wait_list, so as to get a better
packing on most 64-bit architectures.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] generic rwsems
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:25:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070413102518.GD31487@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070413100416.GC31487@wotan.suse.de>
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 12:04:16PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> OK, this patch is against 2.6.21-rc6 + Mathieu's atomic_long patches.
>
> Last time this came up I was asked to get some numbers, so here are
> some in the changelog, captured with a simple kernel module tester.
> I got motivated again because of the MySQL/glibc/mmap_sem issue.
>
> This patch converts all architectures to a generic rwsem implementation,
> which will compile down to the same code for i386, or powerpc, for
> example, and will allow some (eg. x86-64) to move away from spinlock
> based rwsems.
Oh, and it also converts powerpc and sparc64 to 64-bit counters, so
they can handle more than 32K tasks waiting (which was apparently a
real problem for SGI, and is probably a good thing).
But that reminds me:
> +/*
> + * the semaphore definition
> + */
> +struct rw_semaphore {
> + atomic_long_t count;
> + spinlock_t wait_lock;
> + struct list_head wait_list;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> + struct lockdep_map dep_map;
> +#endif
> +};
I think I should put wait_lock after wait_list, so as to get a better
packing on most 64-bit architectures.
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-04-13 10:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-04-13 10:04 [patch] generic rwsems Nick Piggin
2007-04-13 10:04 ` Nick Piggin
2007-04-13 10:19 ` fastcalls, was " Christoph Hellwig
2007-04-13 10:59 ` Nick Piggin
2007-04-13 10:25 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2007-04-13 10:25 ` Nick Piggin
2007-04-13 11:44 ` David Howells
2007-04-13 11:44 ` David Howells
2007-04-13 12:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-04-13 12:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-04-13 10:53 ` Andi Kleen
2007-04-13 10:53 ` Andi Kleen
2007-04-13 11:20 ` Nick Piggin
2007-04-13 11:20 ` Nick Piggin
2007-04-13 12:09 ` David Howells
2007-04-13 12:09 ` David Howells
2007-04-13 12:43 ` Nick Piggin
2007-04-13 12:43 ` Nick Piggin
2007-04-13 13:22 ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-04-13 13:22 ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-04-13 13:31 ` David Howells
2007-04-13 13:31 ` David Howells
2007-04-13 14:03 ` Nick Piggin
2007-04-13 14:03 ` Nick Piggin
2007-04-13 14:29 ` Eric Dumazet
2007-04-13 14:29 ` Eric Dumazet
2007-04-13 14:49 ` David Howells
2007-04-13 14:49 ` David Howells
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=20070413102518.GD31487@wotan.suse.de \
--to=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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.