Re: [RFC] New locking primitive for 2.5

From: Linus Torvalds (torvalds@transmeta.com)
Date: Fri Feb 08 2002 - 16:36:27 EST


On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> and regarding the reintroduction of BKL, *please* do not just use a global
> locks around such pieces of code, lock bouncing sucks on SMP, even if
> there is no overhead.

I'd suggest not having a lock at all, but instead add two functions: one
to read a 64-bit value atomically, the other to write it atomically (and
they'd be atomic only wrt each other, no memory barriers etc implied).

On 64-bit architectures that's just a direct dereference, and even on x86
it's just a "cmpxchg8b".

                Linus

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 21:00:21 EST