From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ns1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:39952 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753772AbYA2EZT (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:25:19 -0500 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: down_killable implementations for every architecture Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 05:23:52 +0100 References: <20080128231918.GB31101@parisc-linux.org> In-Reply-To: <20080128231918.GB31101@parisc-linux.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801290523.52993.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 29 January 2008 00:19, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > As part of the TASK_KILLABLE changes, we're going to need > down_killable(). Unfortunately, semaphores are implemented for every > architecture, which we should probably fix at some point. It would be best to just change it now before doing further changes. Right now we have the bizarre situation that semaphores are more optimized with fast path inline assembly code than the far more critical spinlocks. But that clearly doesn't make much sense. So the best approach would be likely to just pick some generic C implementation from some architecture and use it everywhere. -Andi