From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [Patch V3 0/3] Enable irqs when waiting for rwlocks Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:25:17 +0100 Message-ID: <1228307117.9673.232.camel@twins> References: <20081104122405.046233722@attica.americas.sgi.com> <20081202161311.ae3376cb.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20081203113744.GE8970@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:48625 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751631AbYLCMZ3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:25:29 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20081203113744.GE8970@sgi.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Robin Holt Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, ptesarik@suse.cz, tee@sgi.com, mingo@elte.hu, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 05:37 -0600, Robin Holt wrote: > > It's a bit regrettable to have different architectures behaving in > > different ways. It would be interesting to toss an x86_64 > > implementation into the grinder, see if it causes any problems, see if > > it produces any tangible benefits. Then other architectures might > > follow. Or not, depending on the results ;) > > I personally expect SGI to work on this for x86_64 in the future. > Once we actually start testing systems with 128 and above cpus, I > would expect to see these performance issues needing to be addressed. > Until then, it is just a theoretical. Personally I consider this a ugly hack and would love to see people solve the actual problem and move away from rwlock_t, its utter rubbish.