Re: [PATCH] move task_struct allocation to arch

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com>]

Roman Zippel wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, David Howells wrote:
> 
> > Firstly, in response to me having supplied a patch that made a set of four
> > byte-size values as the status area in the task_struct:
> >
> > | For the future, the biggest thing I'd like to see is actually to make
> > | "work" be a bitmap, because the "bytes are atomic" approach simply isn't
> > | portable anyway, so we might as well make things _explicitly_ atomic and
> > | use bit operations. Otherwise the alpha version of "work" would have to be
> > | four bytes per "bit" of information, which sounds really excessive.
> 
> As I mentioned before I more like the byte approach, since atomic bit
> field handling is quite expensive on most architectures, where a simple
> set/clear byte is only one or two instructions, if there is byte
> load/store instruction. So I'd really like to see to leave the decision to
> the architecture, whether to use bit or byte fields.

We have tons of code already using atomic test_and_set_bit type
stuff...  why not just make sure your bit set/clear stuff is fast?  :)

	Jeff


-- 
Jeff Garzik      | "I went through my candy like hot oatmeal
Building 1024    |  through an internally-buttered weasel."
MandrakeSoft     |             - goats.com