From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: [parisc-linux] Re: [patch] spinlock consolidation, v2 Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 08:49:22 +0200 Message-ID: <20050612064922.GA5257@elte.hu> References: <20050603173132.GX14929@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20050606060512.GB30857@colo.lackof.org> <20050606073627.GA10387@elte.hu> <20050606175029.GC24437@colo.lackof.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org, Matthew Wilcox To: Grant Grundler Return-Path: In-Reply-To: <20050606175029.GC24437@colo.lackof.org> List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: parisc-linux-bounces@lists.parisc-linux.org * Grant Grundler wrote: > IPI and TLB locks can be normal locks. > I've dropped the parts that changed those. > > New (smaller) patch parked at: > ftp://ftp.parisc-linux.org/patches/consolidate-spinlocks-parisc.patch-02 thanks. I'm still wondering about the fundamental question though: why doesnt the box boot without your patch? Why does the __atomic_hash and the pending_lock have to be converted to a raw_spinlock? This patch does not change anything fundamental - you are still getting the same spinlock primitives from spinlock_t. The only thing that changes is with spinlock debugging: there another (generic) piece of code kicks in. The only problem could be with assembly code that 'knows' the layout of the spinlocks but doesnt take debugging into account - but is this possible in the PARISC case? (Yet another possibility would be if i messed up the raw type completely, but then your box wouldnt boot at all.) so this is still quite much of a mystery to me! Ingo _______________________________________________ parisc-linux mailing list parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org http://lists.parisc-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/parisc-linux