Re: [PATCH] generalized spin_lock_bit

From: Robert Love (rml@tech9.net)
Date: Sat Jul 20 2002 - 16:19:31 EST


On Sat, 2002-07-20 at 14:15, William Lee Irwin III wrote:

> I was hoping to devolve the issue of the implementation of it to arch
> maintainers by asking for this. I was vaguely aware that the atomic bit
> operations are implemented via hashed spinlocks on PA-RISC and some
> others, so by asking for the right primitives to come back up from arch
> code I hoped those who spin elsewhere might take advantage of their
> window of exclusive ownership.

Yah, me too ;)

> Would saying "Here is an address, please lock it, and if you must flip
> a bit, use this bit" suffice? I thought it might give arch code enough
> room to wiggle, but is it enough?

I would prefer to do nothing right now. We can implement the general
interface but keep the pte_chain_lock abstraction. Individual
architectures can optimize their bitwise locking.

If that does not suffice and their is a REAL problem in the future we
can look to a better approach...

        Robert Love

-
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 : Tue Jul 23 2002 - 22:00:34 EST