From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:33335 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S968428AbXEHWki (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 May 2007 18:40:38 -0400 Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:40:36 -0600 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [rfc] lock bitops Message-ID: <20070508224036.GE10562@parisc-linux.org> References: <20070508113709.GA19294@wotan.suse.de> <20070508150631.GC10562@parisc-linux.org> <20070508222926.GA20174@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070508222926.GA20174@wotan.suse.de> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Nick Piggin Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-ID: On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 12:29:27AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 09:06:32AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 01:37:09PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > -- > > > Introduce test_and_set_bit_lock / clear_bit_unlock bitops with lock semantics. > > > Add non-trivial for powerpc and ia64. Convert page lock, buffer lock, > > > bit_spin_lock, tasklet locks to use the new locks. > > > > The names are a bit clumsy. How about naming them after the effect, > > rather than the implementation? It struck me that really these things > > are bit mutexes -- you can sleep while holding the lock. How about > > calling them bit_mutex_trylock() and bit_mutex_unlock()? > > bit_spin_trylock / bit_spin_unlock be OK? ;) We already have a bit_spin_trylock -- it keeps preempt disabled until you bit_spin_unlock. Oh, and it only actually sets a bit if you've got SMP or lock debugging on. Nice try though ;-)