From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <42B28B44.9090606@yahoo.com.au> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:35:16 +1000 From: Nick Piggin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Global spinlock vs local bit spin locks References: <1118982092.5261.44.camel@npiggin-nld.site> <20050617044611.GF3913@holomorphy.com> In-Reply-To: <20050617044611.GF3913@holomorphy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: William Lee Irwin III Cc: "David S. Miller" , anton@samba.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Peter Keilty List-ID: William Lee Irwin III wrote: > > I'd feel far more comfortable with this if the lockbit resided in the > page. Also, compare it to akpm's solution. > akpm's solution is alright. They perform similarly on the workload in question. Of course, the bitlock will scale quite a lot better if you pushed it and will automatically be localised per device and have NUMA locality, etc. As far as page flags go - I agree but I didn't want to use one up. This is very localised and I don't think it is particularly worse than what was there before, so I think we can get away with it for the moment. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com