From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753940AbXDXKNe (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Apr 2007 06:13:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752906AbXDXKNe (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Apr 2007 06:13:34 -0400 Received: from smtp109.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.219]:33112 "HELO smtp109.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753940AbXDXKNd (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Apr 2007 06:13:33 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=vZmHvAmiS0+/SY3ye1WyKsnLT60HMYCcn3TB6DvyO9YBqCkKP1msg0LJicG2oGIpAmBY2PN5SazXhqEUOhQVMjufMMiUJvMuW+GlbgQu7QA/yxue1lFrPKqNsgdeXoaRg2NNjOAgKiqJtNIZvHS+HQ2B4JvuUbAbLytrqLz/jPE= ; X-YMail-OSG: 3OLVOzEVM1n3ZBUPUI.4DcYrEV3D85KsWIeKbFxge2cK59cHxYlkKD3tdFtNQwVkz3SVILHG0g-- Message-ID: <462DD83B.40708@yahoo.com.au> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:13:15 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20051007 Debian/1.7.12-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hisashi Hifumi CC: Hugh Dickins , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: PageLRU can be non-atomic bit operation References: <6.0.0.20.2.20070423193641.0457f700@172.19.0.2> <6.0.0.20.2.20070423210926.045668d0@172.19.0.2> <6.0.0.20.2.20070424100507.049670d0@172.19.0.2> <462D6FD3.2090805@yahoo.com.au> <6.0.0.20.2.20070424165007.04921fd8@172.19.0.2> In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.20.2.20070424165007.04921fd8@172.19.0.2> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hisashi Hifumi wrote: > > At 11:47 07/04/24, Nick Piggin wrote: > > >As Hugh points out, we must have atomic ops here, so changing the generic > >code to use the __ version is wrong. However if there is a faster way > that > >i386 can perform the atomic variant, then doing so will speed up the > generic > >code without breaking other architectures. > > > > Do you mean writing page-flags.h specific for i386 so improving generic > code > and without breaking other architectures ? I meant improving the i386 bitops specific code. However if there is some variant of operation that is not captured with the current bitop API, but could provide a useful speedup of common page flag manipulations, then you might consider extending the bitop API and making page-flags.h use that new operation. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.