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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox