From: LaMont Jones <lamont@hp.com>
To: Philippe Benard <phi@hpfrcu03.france.hp.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, LaMont Jones <lamont@hp.com>,
Stan Sieler <sieler@allegro.com>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>,
Jes Sorensen <jes@linuxcare.com>,
Alan Modra <alan@linuxcare.com.au>,
John Marvin <jsm@udlkern.fc.hp.com>,
parisc-linux@thepuffingroup.com, lamont@hp.com
Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] ldcw in __pthread_acquire
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 07:40:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20001218144036.5BE0B1872C@security.hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:27:43 +0100." <3A3E02BF.DC1D0EB5@hpfrcu03.france.hp.com>
> I think LaMont Jones meant that the spinlock loop (in user space AND in kerne
> space) must implement a load word loop, and issue a load-and-clear word only
> when the lock word looks 'free', this is because the 'write' part of the
> load-and-clear word issue a cache broadcast transaction on the bus, so the
> loop should be on load-word followed by load-clear-word when it looks free,
That was one of the first solutions tried in HP-UX, and it resulted in
processor 4 not getting any time (3 wasn't much better), due to the way
that bus arbitration works (it favors one end of the bus.)
The current semaphore operations in the HP-UX kernel do not use ldcw: they
use stb and ldw in some interesting orders (which break when we get weak
ordering with IA64, but then we'll have a low-cost test-and-set.)
lamont
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-12-18 14:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-12-15 10:12 [parisc-linux] ldcw in __pthread_acquire John Marvin
2000-12-15 11:37 ` Alan Modra
2000-12-15 16:37 ` Matthew Wilcox
2000-12-15 17:32 ` Jes Sorensen
2000-12-16 19:29 ` Matthew Wilcox
2000-12-16 21:58 ` Jes Sorensen
2000-12-17 4:31 ` Alan Modra
2000-12-17 1:22 ` Stan Sieler
2000-12-17 2:38 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-17 4:18 ` LaMont Jones
2000-12-18 0:29 ` Stan Sieler
2000-12-18 0:36 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-18 0:48 ` Stan Sieler
2000-12-18 0:59 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-18 4:43 ` LaMont Jones
2000-12-18 11:53 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-18 12:27 ` Philippe Benard
2000-12-18 14:40 ` LaMont Jones [this message]
2000-12-18 19:44 ` Stan Sieler
2000-12-18 19:54 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-18 20:15 ` Stan Sieler
2000-12-18 20:44 ` LaMont Jones
2000-12-18 21:56 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-18 22:26 ` LaMont Jones
2000-12-18 7:10 ` Philippe Benard
2000-12-18 12:06 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-18 14:49 ` LaMont Jones
2000-12-18 15:59 ` Matthew Wilcox
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2000-12-15 10:26 John Marvin
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=20001218144036.5BE0B1872C@security.hp.com \
--to=lamont@hp.com \
--cc=alan@linuxcare.com.au \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=jes@linuxcare.com \
--cc=jsm@udlkern.fc.hp.com \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=parisc-linux@thepuffingroup.com \
--cc=phi@hpfrcu03.france.hp.com \
--cc=sieler@allegro.com \
/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