From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@steeleye.com>
To: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] unify semaphore implementations
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:48:09 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1114714089.5022.3.camel@mulgrave> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050428182926.GC16545@kvack.org>
On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 14:29 -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> Please review the following series of patches for unifying the
> semaphore implementation across all architectures (not posted as
> they're about 350K), as they have only been tested on x86-64. The
> code generated is functionally identical to the earlier i386
> variant, but since gcc has no way of taking condition codes as
> results, there are two additional instructions inserted from the
> use of generic atomic operations. All told the >6000 lines of code
> deleted makes for a much easier job for subsequent patches changing
> semaphore functionality. Cheers,
It's all very well for platforms that have efficient atomic operations.
However, on parisc we have no such luxury (the processor has no atomic
operations, so we have to fiddle them in the kernel using locks), so it
looks like you're making our semaphore operations less efficient.
Could you come up with a less monolithic way to share this so that we
can still do a spinlock semaphore implementation instead of an atomic op
based one?
Thanks,
James
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-04-28 18:48 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 [this message]
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
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=1114714089.5022.3.camel@mulgrave \
--to=james.bottomley@steeleye.com \
--cc=bcrl@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox